Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That leave be given to the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill to sit with two Members on and after Tuesday 11th February.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Wednesday 12 February at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Labour Statistics (Ogmore)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons, male and female, are unemployed in Ogmore; how many are long-term unemployed and under 21 years of age; and how the figure compares to the other areas of Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): On 9 January 1986 there were 4,084 male and 1,238 female claimants unemployed in the Ogmore constituency. Data on age of claimants and duration of unemployment are available only until October 1985, when there were 158 males and 78 females under 20 years of age who had been unemployed for over 12 months. I will, with permission, circulate the comparative information requested in the Official Report.

Mr. Powell: Does the Secretary of State share the views of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that his Government and his party must switch to caring Conservatism and caring capitalism? Is he not aware of the total degradation and frustration that unemployment creates in our schools, homes and throughout society? Is he not concerned that the attitudes of desperation are leading to the escalation of violence and crime in the Principality in particular? Is he not concerned about the young who are now taking to drugs? Is it not time that he joined his colleagues in protesting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very long question.

Mr. Powell: —for a change in attitudes or a change in leadership?

Mr. Edwards: I am greatly concerned by the current levels of unemployment. I do not think that it needs a switch or a change of attitude, because that concern is clearly shared by all Ministers and members of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman refers to changes in attitude, I welcome the substantial changes in attitudes and performance which have happened generally throughout industry. However, I think that it is necessary for those in employment to recognise that pay increases for those in work create unemployment.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is not the description by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) of violence in Wales a gross misrepresentation of the real position and a distortion of the conditions which obtain?

Mr. Edwards: I think that perhaps the most important thing in the future of job creation in Wales is the high reputation which has been gained here and abroad by firms in respect of the attitude and performance of the Welsh work force and those who live in Wales. They have an image, not of violence and hostility, but of a work force which will co-operate to the full to make a success of companies. That is where the future lies.

Mr. Ron Davies: Giver, that in Wales there is little realistic prospect of young people obtaining any sort of work and that they have to rely almost entirely on the youth training scheme, what is the Secretary of State's response to the recent decision of the Mid-Glamorgan area manpower board to refuse to sanction any further youth training schemes in 1986–87?

Mr. Edwards: It is not true that there is no prospect for young people in Wales. It happens that I have been round two major companies in Wales which are taking on labour at the present time, with an average age of 18½. Two of the other companies which I have recently been round in south Wales have an average age of under 27. The truth is that many young people are obtaining employment. I am concerned that agreement has not yet been reached in Mid-Glamorgan about proposals put forward by the Manpower Services Commission. I believe that these problems can and will be overcome. I note with satisfaction that other providers of training have said that they would provide and take up the training places if necessary. I hope that in the reality that will not prove necessary.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As the Labour party has now as good as admitted that there is nothing that it can do about unemployment in the short term, is it not clear that the best and quickest alleviation of the problem lies in further expansion of the community programme? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to press for the removal of the remaining obstacles in the way of an expansion of that programme?

Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend that the community programme is very important for the long-term unemployed. At the end of December last year there were over 12,000 filled places in Wales, and the aim is to expand that total to 20,500 by June.

Mr. Foot: In view of the answer that the Secretary of State gave about training, does he not think it absurd and intolerable that the Government should be insisting, through the Manpower Services Commission, that extra funds should be made available by local authorities, particularly in the areas that are hardest hit, to keep the


training schemes going? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not come out boldly and say that the Government should pay for that? Has he cleared up the confusion of his colleague, because the Employment Minister said only a couple of weeks ago that no burden would be put on the local authorities? Why should we have to bear that burden in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I take it not very well when the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, lectures this Government on youth training, while his Government totally failed to make provision for proper youth training, and this Government have launched the largest programme of youth training ever undertaken in this country and are now extending the YTS from one to two years. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman left us such a monstrous backlog to catch up.

Mr. Wigley: Despite the youth training jobs and the other jobs that have been brought on stream, does the Secretary of State not recognise that, with unemployment more than doubled since his Government came to office in 1979, the time has come for there to be a change of policy? How much worse does the situation have to get before we have that change of policy?

Mr. Edwards: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not tell us what the policy is that will produce growth without inflation, although I hope that he will at least welcome the fact that we are in the fifth year of growth, that inflation continues to fall, that we have the fastest growing economy in Europe, that manufacturing investment has grown steadily since 1983, and that a large number of firms in Wales are undertaking massive investment and massive expansion and are taking on people, as I have discovered when visiting several of them in the past few weeks.

Mr. Best: Is it not a fact that the measures that the Government have introduced — the community programme, the enterprise allowance scheme, the job start scheme, and all the other measures to help the long-term unemployed — are the envy of any Socialist Government, and are far more imaginative than anything put forward by the Opposition when they were in government? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of how many jobs have been created in this country compared with other European countries, and of the percentage of those employed in this country compared with other countries in the EEC?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to all those matters. The fact is that the scheme would not have been the envy of the Labour Government, because they failed to take the necessary measures which have been introduced by this Government against a most difficult background.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that regional aid to Wales has fallen by 40 per cent. since 1979 and is due to fall further until 1990? With such massive unemployment, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), is not the trend towards social disintegration? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman realised that Wales has been at the receiving end, not of caring capitalism, but of naked, aggressive and irresponsible capitalism?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman talks about regional policy. It is effective in relative terms, and Wales

is very well placed, as is borne out by the fact that over about three years we have obtained about 20 per cent. of all inward investment to this country, and in 1985 we obtained 48 overseas projects—over double the 1983 figure. Only last week we secured for Wales one of the best high technology research British-based companies. Renishaw Research Ltd. is opening a new factory in Gwent, and more than 500 people will be taken on by this world-leading firm.

Following is the information:


Constituency
Males
Females


Alyn and Deeside
78
67


Clwyd North West
92
73


Clwyd South West
101
58


Delyn
76
61


Wrexham
137
82


Carmarthen
63
52


Ceredigion and Pembroke North
58
56


Llanelli
77
79


Pembroke
107
124


Blaenau Gwent
155
77


Islwyn
93
33


Monmouth
67
49


Newport East
152
95


Newport West
134
95


Torfaen
93
83


Caernarfon
64
33


Conwy
63
31


Meironnydd Nant Conwy
30
17


Ynys Mon
80
69


Bridgend
77
53


Caerphilly
179
69


Cynon Valley
158
70


Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney
254
147


Ogmore
158
78


Pontypridd
179
81


Rhondda
237
112


Brecon and Radnor
35
31


Montgomery
28
20


Cardiff Central
167
85


Cardiff North
57
34


Cardiff South and Penarth
141
83


Cardiff West
153
112


Vale of Glamorgan
85
65


Aberavon
110
86


Gower
81
49


Neath
70
92


Swansea East
172
127


Swansea West
223
127


Wales Totals
4,284
2,755

Note: The bandings of the analysis of the age of claimants and duration of unemployment are such that data in respect of those aged under 21 years cannot be extracted. The figures are for claimants aged under 20 who have been unemployed for over 52 weeks.

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed a long run on this first question. We must now get on. I ask the House for shorter supplementary questions.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had regarding hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): From time to time I receive representations about waiting lists, usually based on individual cases. There are many different reasons why waiting lists develop in individual specialties. Health authorities have been asked to examine their lists and my


Department is currently arranging a workshop with their representatives to consider the problems identified and the development of possible solutions.

Dr. Marek: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not sail in the same direction as the Secretary of State, who is on his way out with the Prime Minister. Will he take a refreshing, long look at the extraordinary waiting list in the Principality? In Wales, 130,000 people are waiting to get into hospital, and more than 10,000 have been waiting for in-patient treatment for more than a year. Let us have some truth and honesty for once from the Government. Will the Minister advise me? On Friday I talked to a constituent in Clwyd who is suffering from hair loss because of a disease of the scalp. She has been told that she cannot see a consultant for three months. What is the Minister's advice to my constituent?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member suggests that I do not give comparative figures, but sometimes it is a good idea. The rate of increase of in-patient waiting lists has remained roughly consistent with that of the previous Labour Government. The rate of increase in terms of outpatients has fallen by 5 per cent. under the Government. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's constituent, if he will write to me with the details I shall have the case considered.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Clwyd health authority on its productivity record, especially on halving the eye treatment waiting list during the past year? Will he acknowledge that Clwyd's financial allocation for 1986–87 is not as generous as it might at first appear, because 2·5 per cent. of the 5·5 per cent. increase is needed to meet the cost of pay awards not fully funded last year, leaving only 3 per cent. to cover growth of services, advances in technology and other urgently required improvements in the services?

Mr. Robinson: I know that Clwyd is currently conducting a study of its waiting lists. I welcome its action. With regard to resources in this year's allocation to Clwyd, the conditions in which they were announced were the same for Clwyd as for every health authority in Wales. I should point out that since 1979 resources for Clwyd have increased, taking into account those allocations, by just over 32 per cent.

Mr. John: As Pontypridd district hospital is responsible for 8,000 out-patient treatments per year, and as that hospital is scheduled for closure, what sense is there in adding those to the existing lists in Mid-Glamorgan? Must the population of Mid-Glamorgan now look for admission to one of the hon. Gentleman's famous workshops?

Mr. Robinson: The decision about what services to provide in Mid-Glamorgan is one for that health authority.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend accept that the improvements in the National Health Service under this Government, and the improved treatment, when not such good treatment, or even no treatment, was possible before, have encouraged longer waiting lists? What are the waiting times for those on the waiting list?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend has made a well thought out and valid point. In terms of throughput, inpatient treatment has increased by 18 per cent. Under the Labour Government it increased by only 6 per cent. Outpatient treatment has increased by 12 per cent. Under the previous Labour Government it fell by 3·5 per cent.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from local authorities in Wales concerning the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87; and how many of these expressed dissatisfaction with the settlement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have received letters from four local authorities, and five hon. Members have written expressing concern on behalf of their local authorities.

Mr. Wigley: As the eight counties in Wales have had to increase their rates by between 11 and 28 per cent. to make up for the loss in real terms of rate support grant from the Welsh Office, does the Secretary of State agree that the blame for the rate increases that will hit the people of Wales later this year must be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Welsh Office?

Mr. Edwards: No, I do not agree. Provision is up, above the expected rate of inflation, and the settlement is extremely generous in relation to the settlement in England and the past performance of Welsh local government. I can see no possible justification for some of the very large rate increases that have been proposed by counties in Wales. I believe that they will be damaging, not only to those who have to pay the bills, but to employment prospects, about which people have been expressing concern.

Sir Raymond Gower: What circumstances explain the difference in the rates proposed by Welsh counties this year and those imposed last year, apart from the fact that there were local government elections last year?

Mr. Edwards: In the case of South Glamorgan, my hon. Friend may have a point. I understand that the county council spent about £3·5 million of balances last year and has decided not to spend them this year. I believe that the county council should justify the proposed rate increase to its ratepayers and local people. I do not believe that any proper justification has been given for it.

Mr. Barry Jones: I urge the right hon. Gentleman to cease his attacks on the Welsh county councils. No one wants higher rates, but I remind the Secretary of State that the counties are facing demands on their services that are a consequence of cuts and high unemployment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Gwynedd county council has a first-rate case, because Holyhead town has a male unemployment rate of about 27 per cent.?
The county of Clwyd faces a loss of £2 million because of technical changes in the rate support grant assessment. I remind the right hon. Gentleman again that 25,000 people in Clwyd are seeking work. The Secretary of State's financial policies in local government are virtually in ruins. He should acknowledge the difficulties of the counties at a time of high unemployment.

Mr. Edwards: In my view, none of that justifies, for example, South Glamorgan proposing an increase in precept of six times the forecast rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman refers to Gwynedd, where expenditure per head is the highest in Wales, block grant per head is higher than the Welsh county average, and grant-related expenditure per head is the highest in Wales. That does not make a particularly good case for the hardships of Gwynedd.
I know that Clwyd has difficulties, but it is a high-spending authority which has increased the numbers in its


employment while other counties have found it possible to reduce the numbers that they employ and, therefore, reduce their costs. Perhaps the county council might have a go at that.

Mr. Harvey: Although many Conservative Members have reservations about the rate support grant for Clwyd, we find the proposed 15·7 per cent. rate increase totally unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend condemn it?

Mr. Edwards: I hope that local ratepayers and employers, in particlar, will make clear to the county council what the consequences will be if it proceeds with its rate proposal.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales by how much unemployment has increased in Clwyd and in Wales since 1979, expressed as a total and as a percentage.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 9 January 1986 there were 25,786 unemployed claimants in Clwyd. A comparable claimant-based figure for January 1979 is not available. For Wales as a whole, for the same dates, the seasonally adjusted claimant-based figures were 176,500 and 75,100 respectively, an increase of 135 per cent.

Mr. Jones: Those figures invalidate the remarks of the Secretary of State in answer to a previous question. When will this waste of human resources in Wales end? When can measurable numbers of our people look to work that will get rid of the distressing dole queues?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the labour market report by the Manpower Services Commission stated that three quarters of all job losses in Wales were in the manufacturing sector? The deindustrialisation of Wales under this Government continues apace. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are losing blue chip companies such as Courtaulds, Metal Box, Lucas, BP, and we now are losing the Milk Marketing Board? We ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure in Cabinet a change of economic policy, to help the people of Wales get more work.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman must remember that during the lifetime of this Government the number of people eligible to work has increased by about 35,000. An increasing number of people are coming on to the labour market.
This Government have had to deal with what I believe may be the final stage of the decline of the old basic industries in Wales — a process that has been taking place for many generations. We must build on the substantial number of new companies that we have succeeded in attracting to Wales during the past few years.
Only last Friday I visited a factory in Clwyd—Ega Limited—which is undergoing massive investment, has taken on 100 people during the past 12 months and is absolutely confident that its expanison will continue. It is the sort of company that offers prospects for young people, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The right hon. Gentleman has held the high office of Secretary of State for Wales for almost seven years, during which time there has been the highest ever unemployment percentage in Cardigan. As

nothing was done during those years to alleviate the problem, what advice will he give today to the unemployed young people in that area?

Mr. Edwards: To say that nothing has been done is to deny the facts. The hon. Gentleman knows well of the considerable efforts, some of them very successful, of Mid-Wales Development. He also knows of the measures taken in his constituency. I think, for example, of Aberystwyth, where there have been new projects and where a number of new factory units have been built.
The hon. Gentleman knows well of the considerable efforts in mid-Wales—for example, the grant scheme—to create new jobs in rural areas. To say that nothing is being done is simply untrue, as he knows.

Mr. Grist: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has recently been going around Wales making promises which, if allied to the remainder of the Opposition's policies, would set off a rate of inflation that would undermine any hope of investment in this country—the very investment that is the hope for the future?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, I have noted that, and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has been doing that at a time when his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has been pointing to the castasrophic dangers of inflation again being let loose and suggesting that it was time that the Opposition worked out a policy to deal with that priority.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; what were the equivalent figures in May 1979; and what was the percentage increase in each case.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 9 January 1986 unemployed claimants totalled 13,300 in the Newport travel-to-work area and 30,718 in Gwent. Comparable claimant-based figures for May 1979 are not available. For Wales as a whole, for the same dates, the seasonally adjusted claimant-based figures were 176,500 and 74,200 respectively, an increase of 137·9 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Do not those outrageous figures reveal the complete collapse of the crackpot economic strategy with which the Secretary of State has been so closely associated? What guarantee can he give the House today that the figures will not shortly reach 200,000? If he cannot give that guarantee, when they reach that level will he resign?

Mr. Edwards: The figures are rather more representative of the position that we found at the Llanwern steelworks in the hon. Gentleman's constituency when we came into government. It was grossly overmanned, inefficient and had no prospects for any future. It has now become one of the most efficient and competitive steel plants in the world and is actually taking on labour.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I do not want to accuse the Secretary of State of being an economic illiterate, but does he not accept that Opposition Members have asked macroeconomic questions, while he has taken us on a macroeconomic tour of some of the plants in Wales with which he has been involved during the past couple of months? That is not the answer that we need. We need a strategic answer, and he is not giving one.

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman, of all people, having studied the history of Wales, does not understand that the decline of old basic industries and the attraction into Wales of new industries that will form a foundation for the future is the key economic issue confronting the Principality, I can only say that I am astonished and that he jolly well ought to know.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the insensitive way in which the Muntz Plastics factory in my constituency is laying off 130 workers? Will he guarantee to provide the support necessary to ease those lay-offs?

Mr. Edwards: The commercial decision must be taken by the company, but my hon. Friend knows that the Government have provided massive assistance to Clwyd to help deal with redundancies there, especially during the past 12 months. The Government have made a substantial allocation of urban aid, and we shall continue to provide that part of port-east Wales with support at the highest level. Such assistance makes that part of the country especially successful in attracting new industry and investment.

Mr. Rogers: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that circumstances in Wales are disastrous and that the inward investment of which he speaks is not on a sufficient scale to solve the deep problems of Wales? Will he ask the National Coal Board to stop importing foreign coal which is destroying our mining industry? If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do something about jobs, why does he not protect our fragile industrial structure rather than destroy it by his weak-kneed and pathetic subservience to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Edwards: The National Coal Board has imported coal for two reasons. It has imported special coals, which are not readily available in Britain, and coal required by the British Steel Corporation, which has to survive in an internationally competitive market. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the BSC should operate with one hand tied behind its back to help his miners.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Wales since May 1979.

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many council dwellings have been sold to tenants (a) in the area of the Vale of Glamorgan council, (b) in the county of South Glamorgan and (c) in Wales since May 1979.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Between May 1979 and the end of last year 2,057 council dwellings were sold in the Vale of Glamorgan and 5,963 in South Glamorgan out of the estimated total of 46,000 sales in the whole of Wales. Taking sales by Cwmbran development corporation, Mid Wales Development and housing associations into account, under this Administration over 50,000 public sector tenants in Wales have now bought their homes.

Mr. Knox: How does the number of sales in the whole of Wales compare with the number of right-to-buy applications in Wales?

Mr. Robinson: Ninety per cent. of live applications have been processed.

Sir Raymond Gower: As the existing legislation varies the terms under which people can buy and resell, does my hon. Friend think it desirable that they should be publicised by his Department?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We propose, in the Housing and Planning Bill, to increase the discounts for flats to a maximum of 70 per cent. and to introduce measures to provide further protection for buyers of flats against unexpectedly high service charges. We also propose to reduce from five to three years the period during which discount would be repayable. That applies to flats and houses. We shall consider a publicity campaign when that Bill becomes law.

Mr. Roy Hughes: How many houses in Wales are unfit for human habitation? How many lack one or more of the basic amenities? Why has the money from the sale of council houses not been given to local authorities so that they can build houses for those who have to live in deplorable conditions?

Mr. Robinson: The Government have spent £275 million on private sector renovation, compared with the Labour Government's £57 million, and £205 million on public sector renovation, compared with the Labour Government's £86 million.

Mr. Best: Is it not a fact that the Government have given a dignity to council tenants which the Labour party has consistently denied them? The Government have enabled council tenants to buy council houses, which was consistently denied them by the Labour party; the Government have given council tenants a tenant's charter which enables them to do things with their council houses and to take in lodgers, which the Labour party has denied them; and the Government have introduced the right to repair as from 1 January 1986, which gives council tenants the opportunity to repair their homes, which the Labour party has again consistently denied them.

Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree with all of my hon. Friend's points. I only hope that that dignity will not be taken from council tenants by the Labour party if its policy document on the future of council house sales is put into effect.

Perinatal Mortality

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary for Wales what was the perinatal mortality rate in (a) Wales and (b) West Glamorgan in (i) 1979 and (ii) for the most recent available date.

Mr. Mark Robinson: The perinatal mortality rate for Wales was 15·6 per thousand total births in 1979, and the corresponding rate for West Glamorgan was 18 per thousand total births. By 1984, the latest year for which this information is available, the rates had fallen to 10·5 and 9·2 respectively.

Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister assure the House that a comprehensive service for the newly born in Wales will be instituted, including a paediatric cardiologist, a paediatric cardiac surgeon and a paediatric surgeon so that babies born in Wales are given the same first-class service as babies born in England?

Mr. Robinson: Those matters must be considered by individual health authorities in terms of the priorities that


they determine. However, the Government have had considerable success in reducing the perinatal mortality rate, which is part of the success of our perinatal mortality initiative.

Mr. Terlezki: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether there have been any improvements in the maternity service in Wales?

Mr. Robinson: There has been considerable improvement in the maternity service in Wales in recent years, and the figures that I have quoted bear that out.

Welsh Water Authority

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Welsh water authority regarding the privatisation of its services; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh water authority; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I spoke to the chairman of the Welsh water authority about water privatisation only last week. Both my hon. Friend and I regularly discuss the authority's affairs with the chairman. I have nothing to add to the statement that I made last week.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the Secretary of State not realise how deeply offensive it is to the overwhelming majority of Welsh people to introduce the concept of profiteering into such a basic supply as water to householders? Does he accept that privatisation is supposed to be a part of competition, but that there will be no such competition regarding the water supply? Does he agree that he has no mandate to introduce this system before the general election?

Mr. Edwards: Many people in Wales will wish to participate and own shares in the company. It is not true that there is no room for competition. There certainly is room for greatly improved services and efficiency, and that is to the benefit of all water users in Wales.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Secretary of State will no doubt recall that on Wednesday he told us that the chairman of the Welsh water authority was in favour of privatisation, and that I told him that I had spoken to the chief executive who told me that he could see no value in privatisation for consumers or employees. Will he tell the House who is speaking for the Welsh water authority? Is it the chairman, whom he appointed, or the chief executive, who is speaking for both the authority and the majority of people in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The chief executive of the Welsh water authority has written to me about the statement that the hon. Lady quoted. In his letter to me he states:
I am very sorry that confusion was caused but I would like to set the record straight and make it clear that I said nothing of the sort to Mrs. Clwyd.
He concludes:
I hope you do not mind my writing to you to set out the facts but I do feel particularly aggrieved when words attributed to me in the House were a complete fabrication.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition that 25 per cent. of the water in Britain is already supplied by private sector water companies

efficiently and without complaint? Will he hammer home the fact that privatisation will free the Welsh water authority from financial constraints, allow it to borrow money more cheaply and thus accelerate its capital programme?

Mr. Edwards: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has uttered.

Mr. Livsey: What will happen to tenanted farms, forestry and land if the Welsh water authority is privatised? Will farmers be able to buy their own farms from the authority?

Mr. Edwards: The position will be exactly as it is now. The water authority will retain such land as it thinks necessary for its operations. Those whom the hon. Gentleman mentions will benefit from a more efficient authority which can provide a better service.

Heart Disease

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure, in the latest year for which figures are available, by his Department on measures to reduce the incidence of heart disease in Wales.

Mr. Mark Robinson: The Welsh heart programme is receiving very substantial support from the Government. The Health Education Council has pledged £1·5 million over a period of five years. In addition, when I visited Heartbeat Wales on Friday, I announced that the Welsh Office was adding £30,000 to the £100,000 already granted in this financial year and, subject to the usual processes of parliamentary approval, £200,000 in the next.

Mr. Thomas: I welcome the Minister's announcement of his visit to Heartbeat Wales last Friday. All who are concerned about the level of heart disease in Wales support the programme. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amount of expenditure on advertising by cigarette manufacturers in Wales during the period of this campaign is something that we must all condemn? Will the Government take action directly against the cigarette manufacturers over this issue?

Mr. Robinson: The Government are reviewing the existing voluntary arrangements with the tobacco industry. I should not wish to speculate on the outcome of these discussions, but I am sure that the views of the medical profession will be taken into consideration. I share the hon. Gentleman's support for the work of Heartbeat Wales.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Cannot complex congenital heart disease be treated at Morriston and Cardiff instead of patients having to go to Bristol, Hammersmith and Birmingham?

Mr. Robinson: The services that a hospital provides are a matter for the health authority to consider. At the same time, we have centrally-funded services, which we review from time to time.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware of the alarming increase in smoking among schoolchidren? If we are to get on top of heart disease, is it not essential to get on top of the problem of child smokers?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point. This problem is particularly disturbing and prevalent


among young girls. We are taking steps to increase our public relations profile within schools to try to alleviate the problem.

Mid-Glamorgan Area Health Authority (Funding)

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the level of funding to Mid-Glamorgan area health authority.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend has received a number of written representations from residents of Mid-Glamorgan. We have also recently met the chairman of the health authority to discuss its financial position.

Mr. Davies: Does not the fact that there is real disquiet on the part of those involved in the Health Service in Mid-Glamorgan cause anxiety to the Minister? Does he accept that Wales has one of the lowest per capita expenditures on the National Health Service in Europe and that the 5·5 per cent. allocated to Mid-Glamorgan for 1986 is inadequate? Is he aware that we have the third longest waiting list for hospital admissions in the whole of the United Kingdom and that there is no prospect of an improvement in that situation until he and the Government start to change their policies?

Mr. Robinson: We are concerned about the situation in Mid-Glamorgan. That is why we are helping the health authority in its current difficulties. However, on the basis of the latest formula assessment, Mid-Glamorgan is shown to be funded at virtually the correct level.

Block Grant (Clwyd)

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the reduction in Clwyd's block grant figure for 1986–87 between the provisional announcement last July and December's settlement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The county chief executive and treasurer have written to me, as has my hon. Friend.

Mr. Raffan: When my right hon. Friend decides how to re-distribute the underclaimed grant, will he give special consideration to Clwyd's financial predicament, which his own officials concede has been aggravated by what they describe as the "unfortunate" wide difference between its provisional and final block grant figures?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that there was a change between the provisional indications and the final figure, for the reasons that have been given previously in the House and in correspondence. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but I have also made it clear that it is not my intention to use those funds to encourage or compensate high-spending authorities. I shall have to take proper account of those authorities which have sought to meet, and have succeeded in meeting the Government's objective.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Staff

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many staff are paid, fully or in part, by the Church

Commissioners, to work in the service of diocesan bishops, at what cost and in what capacities; and if he will make a statement.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): There are 177 full-time or part-time staff working in the service of diocesan bishops. They include 21 chaplains, 88 secretaries and 68 chaffeurs, handymen and gardeners. The cost to the commissioners is £893,000 per annum.

Mr. Greenway: Has my hon. Friend ever had a ride in a bishop's car? When do bishops have chauffeurs and when do they not? Secondly, what do the handymen do that the bishops cannot do? Thirdly, why was £10,000 spent on research into the political attitude of the vicars and other clergy?

Sir William van Straubenzee: For the average diocesan bishop, the staff is one part-time chaplain, two full-time secretaries, one part-time chauffeur and one part-time gardener-handyman. I have no doubt that the bishops are more than capable of doing the work for themselves, possibly with the exception of secretarial work. However, the support that they need to fulfil their wider diocesan work must result in their being backed up adequately, and that is the reason for the expenditure.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is necessary for bishops to have a proper advisory secretarial staff so that, when they speak on public affairs, their remarks are well-informed? Does my hon. Friend agree that they have a right so to speak, whether or not we agree with what they say?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It must be remembered that some of the bishops have very long distances to travel to the ends of their dioceses, and many of the senior bishops have duties to perform outside their dioceses.
I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for not replying to his question about £10,000 being spent on research. The money for the survey to which he referred was not provided by the Church Commissioners, and I am not, therefore, answerable for it to the House. The survey embraced a number of social and other attitudes, and the results were helpful in the compiling of a report.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman not get tired of veiled attacks on the Church by his hon. Friends?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I do not think that they are attacks. Sometimes questions come from pleasant hon. Friends who just wish to put an edge on the courtesies that they would like to extend to me.

Mr. Winnick: Did the Church Commissioners or the bishops have any comments to make on the remarks of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who said about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not seem to be much related to bishops' staffs.

Mr. Winnick: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should be replaced by a red-blooded Englishman. Do such—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

Clergy (Stipends)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what information the commissioners have as to the number of clergy whose stipends are topped up by other organisations or employers in respect of chaplaincies and other appointments; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Approximately 1,200 out of the 8,300 vicars and rectors receive part of their stipends in part-time chaplaincies and similar appointments.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my hon. Friend for revealing the number of clergymen who receive additions to their stipends. Can he give information and details about the amount that is given to top up the £7,000 stipends for those clergymen who go into schools, or should be encouraged to do so, to check whether religious education is being properly taught and whether the morning assembly is being carried out? Does that form part of the duties of the clergy, or should it be part of their duties under the Education Act 1944?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I must not mislead my hon. Friend. The figures that I gave were with part-time earnings taken into account, and not additional.
On the second point, it is not likely that any financial consideration is involved in entering into schools, but, like my hon. Friend, I attach the greatest importance to the presence of the clergy in their parish on appropriate occasions.

Mr. Frank Field: Given the importance of the laity's contribution to the level of the clergy's salaries, is it not a little rich for the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) to ask such questions when, before Christmas, he was asking us to take strike action to reduce the amount of money available to the Church?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) needs any protection from me for any statements that he makes in the country or in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Industrial Archaeological Heritage

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to promote the preservation of the nation's industrial archaeological heritage.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): My responsibility for the industrial archaeological heritage relates primarily to museums and their collections. My arts budget supports the relevant national museums, the local museum purchase and conservation grant funds, and the national heritage memorial fund. While I encourage worthwhile industrial heritage preservation projects, the resources devoted to these by the institutions from within their grants are largely matters for their judgment.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and I declare an interest. Does he agree that the Science museum and the National railway museum have a vital role to play in preserving the nation's industrial archaeology and that they value their independent status, which is a source of confidence to them? Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that he has no plans to change the system whereby each museum has its own parliamentary Vote?

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has a very close interest not only in the Science museum but in the National railway museum. I know the important role that he plays in their affairs. I am glad that the Science museum spends a considerable amount of its annual purchase grant on industrial items. As for the last part of my hon. Friend's question, a written statement will be published at 3.30 this afternoon.

Business Sponsorship

Mr. Yeo: asked the Minister for the Arts what is the present level of business sponsorship for the arts.

Mr. Luce: The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts estimates the figure at about £20 million.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of business sponsorship could be substantially increased if companies were allowed, along the lines of the American model, to deduct their donations to charity up to an agreed limit of pre-tax profits? Does he further agree that that would be cost effective, because, for each pound of tax revenue forgone, expenditure on the arts would increase by almost £3?

Mr. Luce: It is important to acknowledge the significant contribution that the business sponsorship incentive scheme has made to increasing the amount of money for the arts in the last 15 or 16 months. It now amounts to £6·7 million. That is a great deal of additional money for the arts, and I have increased the amount in the financial budget for the forthcoming year. My hon. Friend knows that a number of positive tax changes have been made in the last few years. They are designed to encourage additional business sponsorship of the arts, and I hope that there will be further improvements. My hon. Friend's specific question ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Freud: I thank the Minister for looking further into the question raised by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). Will he tell the House how many applications, under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, were turned down last year because it had run out of money?

Mr. Luce: The scheme has not run out of money. It is continuing throughout this financial year. I have already announced that there will be an increase in the taxpayers' investment in the scheme to the tune of £1·75 million in the coming financial year.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since business sponsorship has tragically failed to raise the small sum of money needed to keep the Sadler's Wells theatre open, what plans has my right hon. Friend for finding the £250,000 that would save the nation from a major cultural disaster?

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the importance of my right hon. Friend's question, and I am glad to be able to tell the


House that the Arts Council has made an announcement on that important matter today. It has called a meeting with Sadler's Wells and the three companies which regularly use the theatre to discuss a possible solution. That would involve the Arts Council giving the companies additional funds to enable them to pay an economic rent for the theatre. I hope and believe that in that way the theatre can be kept open.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that the figure of £20 million for business sponsorship is only an estimate, and I believe that it is far less than that? Will he take steps to ensure that the recording of business sponsorship money for the arts is more accurate than the present guesstimates, otherwise a misleading impression will be given?

Mr. Luce: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, I suspect that that is a conservative estimate. We work in conjunction with the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which exists to encourage the sponsorship of arts organisations by business. I accept that it is difficult to put a precise figure on it. It is a guesstimate.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I strongly endorse the thoughts offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), but, in the meantime, will my right hon. Friend look at some of the anomolies in the present business sponsorship tax regime? In particular, will he consider whether sponsorship of capital projects could be made tax-deductible, as is sponsorship of revenue projects? Will he ensure that the rules governing the provision of entertainment facilities at sponsored events are both sensible and sensibly administered?

Mr. Luce: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in finding ways in which we can encourage further sponsorship and support for the arts. I know that some of those ideas have been put forward by ABSA and submitted to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the end of the day it is for him to decide what further improvements he can introduce.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Minister for the Arts whether he anticipates there being as much local arts activity after the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils as before.

Mr. Luce: Genuinely local arts activity is a matter in which local authorities should play the leading part. The Government had agreed to take on a larger share of arts funding generally, following abolition, but central and local funds are both required if the amount and quality of arts activity are to be maintained.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept what the Minister says about the need for partnership, but without backing from regional arts associations' funds, surely there is no way in which the local authorities can make that up? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra believes itself to be under threat, and that, seven weeks away from abolition, there is no joint committee to administer the situation in West Yorkshire? Surely something must be done to ensure that the whole panoply of arts activities in the regions are better supported than they are.

Mr. Luce: It is important to note that the Government have taken on considerable additional responsibilities on

behalf of the taxpayer and have thus relieved local authorities of burdens in the GLC and metropolitan areas to the tune of £43 million of additional taxpayers' money. We are not looking to an enormous sum in successor authority support for local arts activities. It is up to them to demonstrate the interest that they wish to show in their local arts activities.

Mr. Jessel: As abolition might have affected Sadler's Wells, should we not all rejoice at the Arts Council's decision to try to find more funds to save Sadler's Wells and warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on having used his influence to bring that about?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is, of course, principally the responsibility of the Arts Council to find a satisfactory solution. I am glad that it is to have this important meeting on Friday 14 February. I believe that it is moving towards a solution which will enable the theatre to remain open.

Mr. Buchan: Is not it nonsense to dwell on the marvellous news about Sadler's Wells when almost every theatre and concert hall throughout the land is in a state of acute crisis? Is not the reason for that the right hon. Gentleman's failure to replace local authorities' funds? Is it not a bit of a sick joke to suggest that money could be found by the local authorities, which, when they try to spend it, are rate capped, and, when they are not rate capped, are abolished?

Mr. Luce: It is unbelievable that the hon. Gentleman has managed to conjure up the most astonishing language to describe the fact that the Government have produced £43 million of additional money to support the arts in the GLC and metropolitan areas. I do not think that it is unreasonable to look to successor authorities, which already spend £7 billion, to play their small part in sharing in the sponsorship and support of arts activities.

Library Service

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with local authorities on efficiency savings in the library service.

Mr. Luce: Management of the library service is a direct responsibility of local authorities, but I am concerned that full value should be obtained from the resources allocated to it. With this aim in mind, I commissioned studies of methods of costing library services and assessing their performance, which I hope will help local authorities to manage these services and monitor their effectiveness.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our libraries are located on prime sites in the community? Will he urge local authorities to explore the potential for partnership development schemes with the private sector? That will release resources which will make our already excellent library service even better for its customers.

Mr. Luce: In the past few weeks I have visited a number of exceptional libraries, including Sutton, Hillingdon, and even some in my county. I have been impressed by the enterprise of a number of those libraries in providing additional services above the basic book loan service. That helps to improve the overall facilities available to the public in those areas.

Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Benn: My point of order does not arise out of Question Time. If other hon. Members have points of order that arise out of Question Time, I could put mine in a moment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall move on to statutory instruments, but I shall take the point of order first.

Mr. Benn: The point I wish to raise arises from the exceptionally severe weather regulations made by the Secretary of State for Social Services. The weather conditions in Derbyshire have been severe. Under the regulations, the Secretary of State has given discretion to local managers of DHSS offices to decide whether to bring the regulations into effect to allow heating grants to be made to people on supplementary benefit.
My point of order concerns a matter of substance to thousands of people facing severe weather conditions who are likely to be denied their benefits. I cannot raise this matter in the House, because the Secretary of State has made regulations that put responsibility on local managers of DHSS offices. I cannot bring pressure through the House on the managers of local offices because they are not directly responsible to the House. This is a matter of great concern to a large number of people. I should be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, if you would advise me on how the matter can be raised.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member is a great expert in these matters. It is not a matter for the Chair to advise him how to raise matters in the House. He has already done that.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of Question Time.
In answering my question No. 27, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts said that he would be making a written statement at 3.30 pm. Will you encourage Ministers who wish to make statements relevant to their subjects to answer questions in the morning, if they insist on giving written answers, so that we can see the answers and respond at Question Time?

Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to back up strongly what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has said. There is another reason for my support. We have a mere 10 minutes of arts questions every three weeks. It would be useful, especially with this Department—it is true of all Departments—if we could have the information available so that we could get our teeth into some meat during this period.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for written statements. I think that the Minister for the Arts meant that he would give a written answer.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are two matters for which you are responsible. The first is the tabling of oral questions. I notice that on today's Order Paper, questions Nos. 22 and 24 were asked by one Conservative Member. Does that mean that other hon. Members will have licence in future to table more than one question, and, if so—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the Order Paper. He will see that question No. 24 is to the Secretary of State for Transport—a different Department.

Mr. Powell: My second point, Mr. Speaker, relates to the coupling of questions. I know that you may not be responsible for—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are taking time from private Member's motions. That is not a matter for me. I do not decide whether questions are linked. That is for the Department involved.

Mr. Powell: As you are not responsible for the coupling of questions, Mr. Speaker, which is the Minister's responsibility, I hope you will bear that in mind when it comes to calling hon. Members whose questions are coupled, because two Conservative Members have been called on supplementary questions on three occasions. Some Opposition Members, excluding myself, who tabled questions were not called because their questions were not reached.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that I do link questions where I can, but it is hardly fair to make that comment today when more Back Benchers were called from the Opposition side than from the Government side. If the hon. Member looks at the Order Paper, he will find that every hon. Member who had a question on the Order Paper to the Secretary of State for Wales was called this afternoon.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of questions, the Secretary of


State for Wales accused me of misleading the House by quoting from a statement by the chief executive of the Welsh water authority. I should like to repeat that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to do that. That would be an extension of Question Time. We frequently hear answers in the Chamber with which we disagree. If I allow the Lady to take up such a challenge, I would have to do that for every other hon. Member. It would not be fair.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I quoted from the letter, I think it would be helpful if I were to lay the full text of the letter in the Library of the House of Commons. That is what I propose to do.

Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, but he made an unwarranted attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). My hon. Friend speaks the truth and stands by the statement that she made to the House on Wednesday on water authority matters. The water authority's position on privatisation is on record, and the right hon. Gentleman has no mandate to privatise water in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made no attack. I merely quoted from a letter addressed to me from someone who felt aggrieved by something said by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).

Mr. Speaker: I shall allow the hon. Lady one comment.

Mrs. Clwyd: It would have been courteous if the chief executive of the Welsh water authority had sent me a copy of the letter. I expect an apology because, in a conversation I had with him, he said that he could see no benefit in the privatisation of the Welsh water authority.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &C.

Ordered,
That the Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 1884) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Education and Training

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I beg to move,
That this House calls for future policy towards 14 to 19 year olds to be based on a close integration of education, training and the Youth Service, taking full account of the aims and objectives of Industry Year.
I realise that terms such as education, training, and Industry Year might all be said to be "good things" in the sense that that description was used in "1066 and All That". The debate could therefore be an occasion for a well-meaning canter round the course notching up worthy platitudes and generally exhibiting care and concern. I hope that we shall do better than that. Conservative Members could indulge in a welter of congratulations on a mounting series of initiatives taken by the Government. I believe that the Government deserve congratulations on many moves which they have made in that sphere. I hope that, instead of relying purely on congratulations, we will concentrate more on looking ahead at how policy might now develop.
A great deal has happened and is happening in education and training. I should like to sharpen the focus of the argument. I shall suggest a plan and what it should entail and I shall talk about some of the problems associated with it. I want to mention the often neglected aspect of youth provision—the youth service. I have a suggestion to make about careers education which is a vital ingredient of any strategy for education and training. Then, in case the links between industry and education have not been explicit in what has gone before, I shall direct some remarks to the subject of Industry Year and its objectives.
The general thrust of the motion, in particular its reference to the integration of education and training, seems to have fairly strong backing. A great deal has been written about the way in which the policy should evolve. Even the Government, in many of their statements, seem to favour something like integration. Basically, it appears that the Government want all young people to have the opportunity to follow a more relevant and practical curriculum leading to the achievement of recognised standards of competence and qualification. I note that there are indications, perhaps pre-eminently through the technical and vocational education initiative, that this opportunity should begin at the age of 14. I also note that the youth training scheme is now intended as a permanent feature. That is made clear in the White Paper entitled "Education and Training for Young People". I most certainly welcome that development.
Apart from that White Paper, we have seen the publication of "Better Schools" and we are seeing the continued development of the technical and vocational education initiative. Discussions are taking place on the initiative of the Manpower Services Commission on non- advanced further education. We are seeing a review of vocational qualifications and the introduction of advanced supplementary levels of examination. We are seeing the certificate of pre-vocational education. We are seeing the college-employer links project, and the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education and we have also seen the introduction of information technology centres.


I do not believe that that is a fully comprehensive list, but it shows that the Government have been busy and imaginative in what they have been trying to create in education and training. However, one could be less polite about it. I notice that the National Association of Head Teachers is being more critical when it describes muddle and confusion as arising from all of that. Perhaps there is something of a child's puzzle about it—those children's puzzles where one is invited to follow pieces of string or lines which are in a jumble and one is never sure which leads to the end of the maze. I think that some of those dead ends now need to be reconnected so that there is more coherence in the picture.
If the House is confused by the welter of initiatives that have been taken and their varying purposes, what about the consumer? How is he to understand what the best course is for him to pursue? The Government are to be given credit for opening up a system for creating great flexibility and widening choice, but perhaps there is now a need to remould before some of the new developments that have been set in train assume their own rigidity and become harder to adapt and adjust into a coherent whole.
The plan that I would put forward, at least to set the argument going, is that we should envisage that education and training most certainly should begin at the age of 14. Basically, there would be three choices. There would be an academically oriented course; a technical and vocationally oriented course; and a workplace oriented course. But before I examine the arguments to support that proposition, I should like to make one immediate point. The National Association of Head Teachers has produced a consultative document on 14 to 18-year-olds. It comes from a working party headed by Mr. John Swallow, the headmaster of Ongar comprehensive school. I have known him for several years, and have great respect not only for what he achieves at his school but for his great knowledge of these matters. Therefore, in answer to any possible criticism from that source, I should like to say that I am not advocating a stratified system. I am looking at the plan that I have put forward very much on the horizontal plane and not on the vertical plane. Those choices should be regarded as equal.
What assumptions lie behind that plan? First, the opportunities that the plan presents should start at the age of 14. Sixteen is altogether too late. By the age of 16, alas, too many people have already opted out of the system—perhaps because they no longer pay attention or gain from classroom experience, or, more dramatic still, they may simply absent themselves from scholastic establishments. We are losing out on too many people if we think that they can be kept in full-time education, in the traditional sense, until 16. I understand that in professional circles today it is argued that 14 might be too late. I suppose that it depends on the quality of the education before that age. I believe that there must be a balance between achieving a broad foundation in education and concentrating on vocational studies.
The TVEI experience suggests that 14 is a realistic age. I note that the drop-out rate from TVEI courses is significantly less than the equivalent drop-out rate from full-time ordinary traditional education. Therefore, I believe that 14 is realistic.
The other assumption is that there should be no work before 18. In that regard, I am on song with the National Association of Head Teachers.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that rather than being hidebound to the age of 14, which can fall at any time within 12 months, the plan should start in the 14th year, at the beginning of that academic year?

Mr. Haselhurst: I recognise my hon. Friend's point. That problem bedevils the education system at many different points earlier than that. That is a detail to be worked out. I say that with no disrespect to my hon. Friend. I fully understand the importance of the point that he makes.
The other assumption is that there should be no work before 18. The National Association of Head Teachers calls that raising the preparation age of young people, which is a fair way of expressing it. We have only to look at the experience of other countries to realise that the time between the ages of 14 and 18 can be spent usefully by all people within those age groups. In Britain we under-prepare our young people for work. I wish it to become the expected norm that full-time work begins only at the age of 18.
Several imperatives are associated with such a plan, of which the first is coherence. In the motion I have used the word "integration", but, in this context, I do not believe that there is much difference in meaning between integration and coherence. Education and training should be spanned in an understandable way. What is done along the chosen route of the three that I have suggested must relate to what is happening in the other routes. The whole system should be based on a mix of education, training and work experience. The mix should vary in the different channels, but remain consistent with the established objective of increasing the amount of practical and work-based learning for those over 14 years. That implies a modular system. Sufficient work has already been done to suggest that such a system is attainable.
The second imperative must be a connection between the routes, because I do not propose three parallel or separate lines. I have referred to routes and channels, but, emphatically, I do not mean tunnels. The routes must be visible with regular cross-over points, which may interweave. Someone could start in a work-oriented course and later revert to the academic stream, followed by a mix of technical, vocational or work-based experience, depending on what is suitable for that person. Cross-over and mingling are needed because the present system is characterised by the inability of people to make second or third choices. At present there are rare opportunities to go back on a decision taken earlier in life. If one is set on the wrong route from the start, it can be the greatest of all difficulties to make the best of one's talents.
How can we realistically expect young people at the age of 14, 16 or 18 to make a decision that will affect the whole of their lives? It is possible to talk to university undergraduates today and discover that even they, with their relative advantages, are uncertain about the job or career that they want in life.
I speak from my own experience of having great uncertainty, almost up to the last minute, about which opportunity to take. I was fortunate in those days, because I had a choice of which line to take. It is hideously difficult


for anyone of school age in a rapidly changing world to decide what to do. We must give people every chance to be able to switch about between the different routes and channels that we can create for them. The participants in the education and training system must be able to seek more academic or more practical learning as their circumstances dictate.
A further imperative is that the nature of my proposed system should be recognised by parents. Too many parents and perhaps too many children regard non-academic work as second best. There must be parity of esteem between the various courses that could be undertaken in an integrated system. We do not want to perpetuate a system that regards 40 per cent. of our young people as failures. We can do better.
Employers must recognise what is intended in such a system and qualifications must be rationalised. The current review of vocational qualifications may provide a valuable start in that direction. Employers must understand what they are getting when young people present themselves for work. It follows that employers must have a greater input into the system and must make clearer what they expect from potential recruits.
A final imperative is that a plan for young people aged between 14 and 18 must be merely the foundation for continuing education. Education to the age of 18 or 19 is not an end in itself. It is no longer a matter of people finding one job to keep them going throughout life. They will have to renew their skills, training and education at various times. That takes us outside the motion, so I shall not pursue the point.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: My hon. Friend has given an interesting analysis of how young people can get involved in careers after leaving school. What role does he see for careers teachers? Should not they be liaising with local industry and businesses to make sure that there is a place ready for a child who is about to leave school?

Mr. Haselhurst: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I deal with that aspect in a moment rather than break the sequence of my remarks.
Some problems will attend the sort of plan that I have put forward. Perhaps the most difficult problem that will have to be faced if we are to have an integrated policy is maintenance allowances for young people. That issue will have to be tackled. I do not see how we can perpetuate a system in which only those on youth training schemes are paid an allowance and that others are paid nothing. There is evidence that people are moving from TVEI schemes into the youth training scheme for that reason. We cannot ignore that fact.
Maintenance allowances would have obvious resource implications and all Conservative Members speak with trepidation when implying that new resources are required. However, I am not sure that vast extra sums would be required if we used a little imagination about the considerable sums already spent, directly or indirectly, on young people in this age group.
If we put all that money together and perhaps divert child benefit, in part or in whole, from the parent to the child, it may be possible to find a solution that would be broadly tolerable, cover the entire age range and remove

biases in the system for youngsters to consider academically-orientated, technical or vocational-oriented or workplace-oriented routes. The problem is difficult, but it will have to be faced eventually.
Vested interests will have to be tackled. It will be all too easy for teachers and employers to take a narrow traditional view and there may be tensions and jealousies between local education authorities and the Manpower Services Commission if it is felt that the MSC has moved in with more money to supplant the work of the education authority. I can only appeal for flexibility, tolerance and a willingness to co-operate among all the partners in the system. Enough has been said and done to suggest that people can and will respond if they see an emerging national need. Therefore, I am by no means without hope that everyone can co-operate in producing a viable system for the future.
There is one other problem. This may be an idiosyncratic quirk on my part, but I think that others feel the same way. If we are to bring about the extent of change that I have described, there must be leadership from the top. That might mean having a Department of State that combines education and training under one roof. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to that point today; it may have to be dealt with at a higher level in Government. However, I believe that that will ultimately be necessary. I am emboldened to say that because I believe that some of my colleagues also believe that it must be tackled.
I would like to see the work done by the youth service integrated into education and training. It must be truer now than in 1974—when I had the honour to introduce the Youth and Community Bill—that many young people need counselling outside the home and the school. People may regret that fact, and obviously we all hope that young people can find the support and advice that they need from their parents and homes, which can be supplemented at school. Alas, the realities of life are rather different. A growing number of young people experience difficulty in finding support and help in either of those places. Therefore, there is a role there for the youth service. I see it as a major counselling service as well as one that can help young people to find constructive leisure.
To some extent, those matters will be covered in the courses undertaken in the 14 to 19-year-old plan—for example, the work done by Project Trident and the YMCA "Training for Life" programme. There are other schemes, and I am not denigrating them by not mentioning them. Interesting work is being done in that sphere. The efforts of the youth service should be integrated into the general sytem rather more specifically and carefully than hitherto. I do not want the youth service to remain a financially poor, unco-ordinated and spasmodic service. It has struggled as a Cinderella for far too long.
I hope that in making remarks about career structure and education I shall respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). There must be a quantum increase in careers education, and it must go further down the school system. The current volume is not sufficient to provide an effective service, and I do not believe that that service is currently as efficient as it should be. We should consider a new, combined, independent service merging careers teaching — which is under-funded — with the careers advisory service. I do not see why someone should not be employed in a school by a new centralised careers service. That


person would spend most of his time in that school providing careers education and advice for the pupils and, perhaps, help on other courses that come within his ambit. He would have responsibility for liaising with industry to ensure that opportunities are created that match the product of the various courses in his district. That would be a useful way forward, and I commend it to the House.
Included in my motion is a reference to Industry Year. There has, of course, been a full and interesting debate on that during private Members' time, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I do not want to cover the same ground today, but it is an objective — some say the most important objective—of Industry Year to improve understanding between education and industry. I hope that that objective has been largely assumed in much of what I have already said. There is an opportunity today, however, to stress that each needs the other. Industry is vitally concerned with what happens in education and training, while education and training need to rely heavily on industry to provide a decent service for the pupils and trainees.
Industry needs to be not only the provider but a great source of influence on our education and training system. It can help to bring education alive so that it is no longer drab, dull and apparently irrelevant. There is a great deal of evidence that teachers can gain from experience within industry. Many of our major companies, at their own expense, have undertaken schemes to ensure the translation of their people into schools and teachers into their companies. Those who have already experienced that say that it has been of great benefit.
Such useful initiatives, whether from the CBI or individual companies, have helped to forge better understanding. However, the coverage is far from universal. The CBI states that its "Understanding British Industry" scheme covers only about 5 per cent. of our teaching force. The CBI's aim during Industry Year is to improve that coverage to about 40 per cent.—but even then we shall still be very much behind the sort of standards that we should achieve.
What more can be done? If there is an integration of much of our education and training, that must mean a greater contribution from industry. The MSC is due all credit for helping employers and trade unions to understand that point. Perhaps we should take up a point in a report published only today by the eastern region of the CBI which suggests that more business men should be governors of schools. That is something that we have not previously considered sufficiently.
I wonder whether we would encourage the further involvement of industry by giving a little financial inducement. There will be no difficulty in encouraging the ICIs, BPs and IBMs of this world to do valuable work; it is the smaller companies that wonder whether they have the time to make the necessary contribution. Perhaps such efforts—which can be quantified where business men are giving their or their employees' time to help the development of training and education off their premises—should be tax deductible. We would quickly regain any such concession in the quality of trainee and pupil emerging from the system.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am sorry to take up my hon. Friend's time. Is he aware that one of the leading

community colleges in Leicester, Judgemeadow, funds a large number of projects through the local authority and local businesses, whose representatives serve on the board of governors? Teachers and pupils have the opportunity to try out computers and machine tools. That initiative is working in Leicester.

Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many firms have been extremely generous and far-sighted. The volume of activity will increase, but it must increase quickly. We do not wish to be struggling in another 10 years and to have reached only 60 or 70 per cent. of the teaching force in Britain. I suggested that the expense of this activity could be tax-deductible because it could hurry the process along. I am not implying that, without such a concession, firms would not do what was right both in their interests and in the national interests.

Mr. Holt: On the question of available resources, has my hon. Friend given consideration to the many employers who have expensive capital equipment which technical colleges and other places of education simply cannot match in terms of resources? In the industry in which I worked we had machinery of which no trainee would have had any experience in the formal educational sense other than through the company. The company had down time on the machinery when it was not producing. The technical colleges will not be able to train the people who are required unless there is some financial inducement.

Mr. Haselhurst: My hon. Friend makes a valid point which may be allied to what I have said. I do not want to go into the question of the availability of equipment and hardware, although it does present a problem. It may be that the hardware is scattered too far and wide—that which is available in technical colleges and that which is available only within the premises of employers. More thought must be given to how we can make equipment more accessible to more people.
However clear may be the pattern of education and training in the future, and however much we commend individuals, the Manpower Services Commission, companies and teachers, we need the help of the Government. This Government, I believe sincerely, have shown that their heart is in the right place. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to laugh. Obviously, he wishes to discount and discredit all that has been done. That is most unfair and unreasonable.
Some of the Government initiatives have been taken a little late in the Government's life. I would have preferred some of them to have been started immediately the Government came to office. However, I will not knock what the Government are doing now. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the value of these initiatives is recognised in all sections of industry. It is not a matter for silly denigrating laughter. The hon. Gentleman should know better.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Surely the hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic to a degree of cynicism from these Benches? Most of the so-called progress that has taken place over the past six years has come about because there are 4 million unemployed, 1¼ million of whom are young people. That is why the Government are instituting most of these reforms.

Mr. Haselhurst: I did not especially want to inject a note of controversy into this afternoon's proceedings. I


thought that the concepts which I put forward would be treated on their merits and sympathetically throughout the House-give a little there and take a little here.
If the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) makes a jibe about this Government reacting for the wrong motives—the increase in unemployment—one can point to the last Labour Government when we had mounting unemployment, though below what we have experienced recently. The Labour Government did not lift a finger to do anything when many believed that action should be taken. There was not much support on the Opposition Benches for the Youth and Community Bill. The Labour Government had five years to take action but they did nothing.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My hon. Friend may recall the memoirs of the then Chief Secretary, Lord Barnett. In them he gave a blow-by-blow account of how Mrs. Williams went to the Cabinet with a scheme similar to the youth training scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other leading figures in the then Labour Government whittled the scheme away and the pilot scheme was given only £7 million. That was all Mrs. Williams got.

Mr. Haselhurst: My hon. Friend obviously has a stronger stomach than me for the memoirs of former Labour Ministers, but he has made a useful point.
I believe that there have been several good beginnings, and they have received widespread backing and much political good will, despite the laughter of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. If I may change the metaphor slightly, it seems that almost all the pieces of the jigsaw are now on the table and it is not unreasonable to call on the Government to start fitting the pieces together. If the Government do so, we can then offer a new and recognisable deal to young people. We must create new opportunities in industry in Britain to put it on a par, in terms of its most important raw material, human beings, with other nations with which it must compete. If the Government act, they will give fresh encouragement to the teaching profession after the present difficult dispute has been brought to an end. The Government must show that they have the will and determination to complete what they have begun. I believe that the moment for that has come.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) twice over. First, I congratulate him on his success in the ballot and, secondly, I congratulate him on his use of that success. My hon. Friend knows more about this subject than most of us. He has proved that to us this afternoon, not least with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the rather Orwellian acronyms that litter the education and training landscape. My hon. Friend has been years ahead in calling for the close integration of education and training in the youth service. I hope I shall be able to show my hon. Friend that we are at least beginning to catch him up.
I start with three propositions on which I think I will carry even Opposition Members. First, it is clear that there has been substantial historic concern about the relationship between education and training. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) were here this

afternoon he would confirm that Prince Albert himself would have waxed indignantly about the technician gap. That concern has been sharpened by high unemployment and the pace of technological change. These two factors have meant that for most young people entry into the job market has been delayed for a couple of years. For most young people it has become crystal clear that a permanent, once-and-for-all plunge into the job market, with no training after the age of 16, offers a questionable future.
The second proposition is that we have failed, because of the absurd and debilitating polarisation between so-called academic learning and so-called vocational learning, to bring together education and training.
We need general education courses which are also practical and relevant, and we need vocational courses which include those elements of general education necessary to foster the qualities which employers say that they want. It seems ridiculous to suggest that anybody who ever emphasises the importance of general education is an effete, wishy-washy, dare I say wet, descendant of Dr. Arnold, and personally accountable for the decline of the British industrial spirit. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that anybody who talks about the importance of relevance in education is a utilitarian, uncouth and uncivilised descendant of Mr. Gradgrind.
In a remarkable book on the philosophy of education written a few years ago, Mary Warnock argued that education should be regarded as a preparation for the good life and that, for most people, the good life should include work, and that education had to take account of that. I endorse that point of view, although I would not necessarily want to associate Mary Warnock with Dr. Arnold or with Mr. Gradgrind.
The third proposition is that it is in the interests of education and of industry to know more about each other, but it is rather depressing that a nation with a history such as ours needs Industry Year, but there it is. I hope, nevertheless, that Industry Year is a substantial success and that it helps education and industry to break out of the vicious circle in which both sides undervalue the other's work.
When addressing the curricular and institutional problems of education and training, we are dealing mostly with what happens after 16, but what happens before is vital. My hon. Friend understandably mentioned the age of 14 as a starting point in his motion. If we get right what happens between five and 16, and the curriculum is, according to the famous quartet, broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated, and if we are able to raise the threshold of achievement for those of average ability and those of below average ability, the problems after 16 are much easier to deal with.
I do not want today to engage in another argument about the teachers' dispute, which we have managed to discuss several times recently. However, I should like to make it clear once again that I wholly take the point that, unless we have a better trained, more highly motivated and better paid teaching force with clear conditions of service, our other ambitions for education before and after 16 are as dust in the wind.
I have mentioned the importance of balance. The technical and vocational education initiative is clearly relevant in that regard. As my hon. Friend will know, it is an initiative in which we are investing about £220 million of taxpayers' money. It should help to increase liaison between industry and education. I understand that


my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment will want to say a little more about that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are considering carefully the wider application to all secondary schools of the lessons that we have learnt from the pilot TVEI projects.
As for breadth and balance, what young people are taught and how they are trained should not be determined, let alone narrowed, by examinations. Examinations should be the servant and not the master of the curriculum. Young people should be well advised about the routes rather than the tunnels that they take through the education and training system, and they should be able to transfer from one route to another according to their abilities or ambitions. It is in that spirit that the Government have acted to reform national exams at 16-plus, 17-plus and 18-plus, starting at 16-plus with the general certificate of secondary education.
The GCSE is one of the most important education reforms since the war. It has been discussed for at least 15 years. Nobody can legitimately argue that progress has been exactly helter-skelter. The examination puts greater emphasis on practical skills and application as well as on knowledge and understanding. I believe that it will do much to prepare young people better for adult and working life. It should motivate and engage pupils to achieve more. It seems to provide a better and fairer way in which to assess pupils at the end of the compulsory period of schooling and a means of establishing a sound basis for all post-16 education and training, including the youth training scheme, the certificate of pre-vocational education, A-levels, and full-time vocational courses.
The preparations for the GCSE are quite literally unprecedented. Most have gone according to plan, and some have gone slightly ahead of plan. I do not doubt that the timetable is extremely tight or that the task of introducing the exam is tough and puts additional demands on secondary school teachers. The timetable has always been tight and the job of introducing the exam has always been tough. But nothing that has happened in the past year or so has made the timetable any tighter or the task any tougher.
Teaching the new syllabuses will start this autumn and the examination will be sat for the first time in the summer of 1988. Retreat from that timetable is not an option. We cannot put into reverse the preparations that have been made so far and then start up again 12 months later.
I hope that we shall have the opportunity to discuss the GCSE at some stage. We shall of course listen sympathetically to any suggestions, whether they come from examining groups, employers, or teacher unions, about how we might add to the preparations that have already been made and help smooth the introduction of this important examination. We are prepared to listen sympathetically to any proposals. We are not prepared, however, to abandon the examination and to preside over what I believe would be an absolutely chaotic retreat.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Has the Minister had correspondence from teachers who are responsible for introducing the new GCSE? Only last week, I had correspondence from representatives of the whole of the

north of England saying that there is little likelihood of the examination being introduced in September because there is already chaos in schools regarding examinations.

Mr. Patten: I have had a good deal of correspondence on the subject. I am in the process of meeting all of the examining groups to discuss it and I have talked to several of the teacher unions, and will continue to do so. There will be chaos only if some of the teacher unions determine that there will be chaos. I do not believe that, in the wake of what we all hope will be a satisfactory settlement under the auspices of ACAS, any responsible secondary teacher, given the help that we are providing with training and our willingness to consider other means of helping, will set out to wreck what all of the teacher unions and everyone else recognise is the most important educational advance for pupils of this age for years.
The House knows that we are anxious that the pattern of education for A-level students is too narrow, especially as compared with provision in competitor industrial countries. We must aim for a broader more balanced education for those following A-level courses, whether into higher education or employment. The House will know that we are introducing AS-level examinations in 1989. A-levels will remain, as they set standards of excellence which should be preserved. Nevertheless, some reforms are necessary, for example, in establishing criteria for key A-level grades.
There are also interesting developments in individual subjects, such as London's design and technology syllabus, which includes a module on computer-aided engineering, and the Joint Matriculation Board's new common syllabus on foreign languages which puts a great deal more emphasis on practical language skills.
Outside the GCSE and A-level, but with links to them, we have taken two major initiatives in qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds. We have introduced a certificate of pre-vocational education, which is a new qualification for young people of school-leaving age who do not aspire to A-levels or a specifically vocational path, but who wish to remain in full-time education, whether at further education colleges or in schools. It provides a broad course based on general education with a vocational slant. This year may not have been ideal to start such a new syllabus, but about 15,000 pupils have been taking the CPVE course in more than 1,000 schools and further educational colleges. I hope that next year the takeup will be greater. The takeup will be helped if we can do more to publicise this extremely important new course.
The second, and arguably more important, initiative has been our attempt to cut a path through the jungle of vocational qualifications. That is what the review of vocational qualifications under the admirable chairmanship of Mr. Oscar de Ville seeks to do. It will be completed in April, and we look forward to considering its recommendations as soon thereafter as possible.
I am confident that we can build on existing strengths to develop a system of qualifications which is more attractive, relevant and accessible to young people and employers, while defining and maintaining the highest and clearest standards. We need to encourage more and better vocational education and training to produce competent, adaptable and creative individuals that our society and economy obviously need.

Mr. Holt: I wish to refer to the quantum of foreign language teaching and training, although I recognise that


the debate is about training, industry and education. In reply to a recent question I was told that less than 2 per cent. of schools offered Russian or Japanese, and that only two schools offered those subjects in the whole of Scotland. How will we compete, and what resources will the Minister put on the table?

Mr. Patten: One of the themes in our White Paper "Better Schools" was that we needed to broaden the curriculum, and I accept that. It is invidious to choose between one subject and another. Although I recognise the importance of encouraging Japanese teaching and the study of Japanese in our schools, I have recently concentrated more on the importance of physics and mathematics, and on developing consensus about teaching the English language. I have read some documents about teaching the English language in our schools and find them almost incomprehensible. That should be a high priority, although I accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of ensuring that we produce people who can sell vast quantities of cars to Japan and the Soviet Union.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Minister tell us what sort of cars we would sell to the Japanese?

Mr. Patten: Those which are described as British.

Mr. John Golding: The Minister is blushing. I have never seen a Minister blush before.

Mr. Patten: That is not a blush, but blood pressure. It becomes increasingly difficult to know what one is driving. I have a Morris Minor which is regarded as British, and also a Vauxhall Cavalier, but I am not sure how hon. Gentlemen would describe that.
Better careers guidance is important, not least because if young people make the wrong decision at 15 or 16 it is personally damaging for them, and costly for society. Once young people have made that choice, they should not reckon that future options are constrained by anything other than their determination and ability. Therefore, we need a much wider recognition of the already well-developed route to higher education through vocational qualifications.
Local education authorities must plan provision for 16 to 19-year-olds much more coherently than at present. The distinction between further education colleges and schools has to some extent been blurred, first by the long and, I am pleased to say, sustained tradition in further education colleges of general education, and secondly by the advent of the new sixth former in our schools. Those factors provide reasons for more coherent planning throughout the further education sector and schools.
Two further factors are vital. The first is demography over which, happily, politicians have little influence, except personally. The number of young people in the 16 to 19 age group will fall like a stone at the end of this decade, and in 1993 the number of 16-year-olds, for example, will be about one third lower than the number at the peak in 1981. Secondly, although numbers will fall, I am convinced that the participation rate of young people in education and training will continue to rise even if, as we hope, youth unemployment falls. Young people recognise increasingly that within the job markets of the future those who do not have qualifications will be desperately disadvantaged.

Dr. Hampson: People in Leeds may become worried that my hon. Friend is giving carte blanche to tertiary education. The Labour-controlled council has without consulting headmasters put forward an expensive scheme for the entire city to move from sixth forms to tertiary centres even though many schools, admittedly not necessarily throughout the city, have extremely good sixth forms.

Mr. Patten: I am certainly not giving carte blanche support to anything of the sort. However, local education authorities will have to plan provision across the age range in a way which is educationally sound and cost effective. I have seen various different ways of doing that throughout the country, and the last thing that I wish to do is to impose one solution on the whole country. Without reawakening old controversies, we have been down that path before, and it was not noticeably successful.
To consolidate and improve further education we clearly need to strenthen the partnership between colleges and employers. At present there is no lack of goodwill. Ways of improving the responsiveness of colleges to employers' needs are being explored, for example, through the colleges and employers link project. I have been very impressed by the work of further education colleges in the past four or five months. The colleges are well aware of the importance of better marketing for their courses and of the importance of more flexibility and efficiency in providing the sort of courses that local employers want. The most common complaint I hear is that many employers do not know what they want and that some employers still give insufficient priority to education and training, which I believe is one of the reasons for our economic problems.
The Manpower Services Commission has quite properly been at the forefront in trying to persuade employers that investment in training really is what it says, and is not a dead-weight cost. In particular, in planning work-related, non-advanced further education, the MSC has been able to focus local employers' attention on the opportunities available in local colleges. By acting as a proxy for local employers, the MSC has been able to help colleges respond to the demand from local employers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden was right to refer to the youth service. I would say more about the youth service if I had time, but I want to allow other hon. Member to speak. The youth service has been particularly concerned, over the past few years, with the problems of youth unemployment, particulary in the inner city areas, and with the problems of those who are virtually alienated from formal education. My hon. Friend will know that the National Advisory Council for the Youth Service met for the first time last month. He will not be surprised to know that the council expressed its interest and concern about education and training, and we look forward to hearing more from the council as it gets under way.
In conclusion, I express once again my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden for the spirited and thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate. I hope that the debate will help us to break down some of the rigid distinctions that still exist between education and training. I see the work of the education service being complemented by the expertise of employers and training agencies. We should all regard ourselves as being on the same side. We have a considerable job to do


if we are not to betray the hopes of a whole generation and if we are not to fall further behind what other countries do in this most important area.
I trust that I have provided my hon. Friend with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that we have set our hand to this extremely important task and that, to follow what my hon. Friend said, we are not just talking but actually doing something about the problem. I would not like to indulge in what Lord Palmerston called the "abuse of metaphor", but I think that we are putting together some of the pieces of the jigsaw.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on initiating this debate and on choosing a subject which is not discussed enough in the Chamber and which should be taken extremely seriously. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. Many of his suggestions were both positive and creative. Indeed, many of them could have come from the Labour party manifesto.
However, it emerges from occasions like this—we have had a civilsed debate so far—that there are two faces of Conservatism. One face runs the engine of the Government and the other is a more civilised face which appears in debates like this. It may be that we shall hear a different tone in other speeches, but a visitor from education, in witnessing this debate, would be forgiven for having a feeling of slight unreality.
There have been two speeches from the Conservative Benches which hardly made any mention of the fact that education and training are at a lower ebb than at probably any time since the Education Act 1944. No mention has been made of the longest running dispute in the education service that is harming families, parents and the morale of the teaching profession. Also, the Government have destroyed the traditional training mechanisms. Many of them were imperfect, but at least they existed to train people. I refer to the industrial training boards, skillcentres and, in particular, the apprenticeship system. A visitor from outside would be forgiven for thinking, "What on earth has been going on in the past six years when all that has been ignored in the remarks so far?"
I must bring the House back to a sense of reality. The morale of the teaching profession is lower than it has ever been since 1944. The reason is not simply that teachers deserve better pay. I do not have to descend into the realms of theory. The fact is that teachers of certain subjects are not coming forward. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) mentioned the lack of training in Japanese and Russian. I was reminded by the hon. Gentleman's comments — if we are serious about the future of industry—about the lack of candidates coming forward for the vital jobs in science, technology, applied electronics, robotics and computer studies. I have visited schools up and down the country which are crying out for help, because they do not have the ability to attract men and women qualified in those subjects to teach our young men and women because teachers' pay is not good enough.
I have just returned from a visit to Stevenage. I was told that a school there could not even hope to recruit someone, even if the candidate was given a house in the area for a two or three-year free period, because that person would not be able to afford to rent or buy a house in that area on

a teacher's salary. Such a candidate would be forced to go into industry, where computer and electronics companies pay half and even twice as much again.

Mr. Chris Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of his thoughts on the fact that average salaries for teachers in real terms when the Labour Government left office were £800 lower than they are today?

Mr. Sheerman: I shall return to that point later in my speech. However, I challenge the Minister's figures. I read the Minister's press release and checked his figures. I think they are completely wrong, and the teaching unions agree with me.

Mr. Patten: I bet they do.

Mr. Sheerman: Indeed they do.
Again, the Minister is deriding the teaching profession. Since I have been in the House, all I have heard from the Government has been an attack on teachers. I have mentioned teachers' pay, which does not produce teachers qualified in the right subjects at the right time and in the right place. It is a question not just of money, but of morale.
Time and again the Secretary of State for Education and Science has attacked teachers for being poor teachers, not committed to education or to the future and welfare of their pupils. That is wrong. Such attacks undermine the profession and are at the heart of the current dispute. If the Government had anything other than a desire to continue the dispute, the teachers' unions would have settled long ago. I am sure that they would have done so if the Government had governed and that had been seen to be their role.
I want to consider some of the positive aspects in the motion. Many of the things that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden mentioned are things to which the Labour party is already committed. However, when he talked about integration and coherence, he certainly touched on a subject to which so many professionals in the education world would say, "Hear, hear."
The pursuit of coherence is important to the National Association of Head Teachers, to which the hon. Member for Saffron Walden referred on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman went through the list of acronyms. He referred to TVEI, CPVE, and a host of other schemes. I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that new demands are being placed on teachers when their morale is at an all-time low.
It is not easy for teachers in the modern world, when the Government introduce many new schemes, to know that a high percentage of the young men and women in the classroom will not automatically go into employment when they leave school, as so many did in my generation. The effect of unemployment is to be seen in the schools. It has led to low morale among pupils, and their motivation has suffered. The Government have underestimated the consequences.
In a climate of massive unemployment, there are many areas where most average youngsters have no chance of obtaining a job on leaving school. In the north-west, 22·7 per cent. of youngsters at school stay on after 16 years. In the south, and in Greater London, 35·3 per cent. stay on after 16. What is the destination of young men and women who have been on the youth training scheme? In the


northern region, 41·5 per cent. of those who complete a youth training scheme join the dole queue, compared with 15·3 per cent. in the south-east. The education and training situation is desperate. Many young people throughout the country are in a state of despair. That is the real context for this debate.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden asked, "Is 14 years too late?" I believe it is. I accept that many international observers think that our primary schools are extremely good, but, unfortunately, something goes wrong when our bright young people leave their primary schools and move into secondary education. It seems that they are turned off education. Indeed, it seems that they themselves are turned off as well. I am sometimes left in despair when I talk to youngsters. It seems that some of them have lost hope in their country, in industry, in their communities and in themselves. They have lost self-respect and self-regard while at school. Those of us who are interested in Britain's future must, irrespective of party, ascertain the causes for this despair.

Mr. Tony Baldry: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way now.
Something happens to our young people when they embark on secondary education. We must identify what it is and produce remedies.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden was right when he said that youngsters with no qualifications no longer move directly into work. He rightly said that they do not move into work in many instances before they are 18. Whether the fact that there is little work for young men and women before they are 18 is a consequence of Government policy or whether it is the consequence of mounting mass youth unemployment is a question that I shall leave others to answer. I invite others to draw their own conclusions from my earlier remarks.
When the Minister had only recently taken on his new education brief, he made a speech in which he referred to young people having a wide and real choice at 16 years of age. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden put his finger on reality when he said that if real choice is to exist, a system of education maintenance allowances should be introduced as soon as possible. Unfortunately, many young people do not have a choice. They have to take part in a youth training scheme, and thereafter they have to try to find a job.
The position of many families forces youngsters to turn off the career path that would be best for them—for example, further education at a college or staying on at school. Tens of thousands of young people are having to forgo what is right for them because they need to take a small wage home to their families. In other words, they no longer have a choice. I hope that the Minister is serious when he makes speeches throughout the country on these issues. I hope also that within the Department he will argue for real choice for youngsters.
The Labour party believes in many of the principles and concepts which are espoused by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden. They are set out in manifestos and policy documents and are ready for implementation after the next general election, which seems to be more imminent as each day passes.
We believe that there is a balance between a good general education and an ability to receive an education in technical and vocational subjects or, as the hon. Member

for Saffron Walden said, in practical subjects. A balance between academic, technical and vocational subjects and the workplace is a good description of a proper comprehensive education. Conservative Members have not always espoused comprehensive education, but I am delighted to hear that some of them are now accepting the proposition.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden talked about real choice and the possibility of young men and women changing course as their careers developed, and he drew a distinction between routes and tunnels. An awful tunnel that blights our industrial and educational lives is one that stems from a percentage of the privileged opting for a different tunnel from the majority, which leads them away from the state sector—

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Winchester?

Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is not responsible for where his parents sent him for his education. He has learnt the lesson and sent his children through the state education system. In discussing routes and tunnels, private public school education is the tunnel, and it is a blight on the education of our young men and women. It is more responsible for our poor performance in industry and in technical education than almost anything else.
The youth service has a growing importance in our society. There are about 1·25 million unemployed young men and women, and they need and deserve a better youth service than the one that was appropriate for the 1950s and 1960s. If local authorities and the Government choose to ignore that, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. A properly manned and resourced youth service would be a tremendous help in bringing some counsel and help to young people who are unemployed and in despair.
The Government rejected the main findings of the Thompson report, which were based on experience and participation. The rejection of putting real money into our youth service and taking it seriously has had a damaging effect on our young people. The way that the youth service has been used over the past five years has led to many missed opportunities.
I should have thought that last year, International Youth Year, would have been an opportunity to introduce a properly resourced youth service. There are many models. The Wolverhampton youth service is an example where Labour authorities are showing what can be done, even on a reduced budget.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a report on the funding of the youth service was recently published. One of its main findings was that 92 authorities were not spending up to their estimated expenditure on the youth service, but were diverting about £13 million into other services. Many of the most serious offenders were Labour-controlled authorities. When it comes to the allocation of funds for voluntary services, where there is a more effective use of resources, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the most serious offenders were again Labour-controlled authorities.

Mr. Sheerman: That is a good point, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the figures show a mix of Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities. However, when local


authorities, Labour-controlled in particular, are squeezed of resources by the Government, it is not surprising that sometimes their priorities for employment, regeneration and other activities have to be given precedence over the youth service. We must have some youth service resources particularly earmarked for that purpose. That is the way that we shall go when we form a Government.
If we are to be honest with millions of young people, we must debate the youth training scheme tonight. It is at a critical point. It is about to go into its extended two-year form. As the Government and Ministers know, the Opposition broadly support the extention of YTS to two years, because that is a step on the road to Labour's long-stated objective in "Learning for Life", published in 1981, and in other documents, towards a proper two-year traineeship for all young people. Trainers, educationists, and employers who are trying to make these schemes work deserve our help, encouragement and congratulations. We also support the closer regulation of managing agents and the work being done on the accreditation of YTS.
There is truth and fiction in this matter. The Prime Minister is fond of talking about truth and fiction and about how much stranger truth is than fiction, so I shall develop that theme. The truth is that those working valiantly in YTS are shackled in their efforts by the effects of five fictions.
The first fiction is that the Government have made extra resources available for the two-year YTS. The truth is that no more will be spent on the two-year programme when fully operational than the £1 billion promised in 1983 for the one-year scheme. That is training on the cheap, and the result is catastrophic. There is inadequate off-the-job training—only 20 weeks over the two-year period, when the TUC and educators wanted 26 weeks. It means overall lower training qualities than we need and want. It also means a great shortfall in the premium places and an allowance that is too low, by anyone's reckoning, by about £500 a year for each trainee.
The second fiction is that the Government have created in YTS a high-quality skills training programme. At one time, Lord Young wanted to call it the skills training programme rather than the youth training scheme. The truth is that most YTS places are fairly low-quality work experience. We must move on from that, but we cannot do it without cash. It is also true that high-quality apprenticeship type training has been halved since 1979. The new funding arrangements will force many YTS employers to hire out their trainees on the cheap to get the income to make up for the funding deficiencies. That is a recipe for the exploitation and alienation of our young people.
The third fiction is that the new premium places are a proper successor to the mode B schemes—the generally high-quality schemes aimed particularly at disadvantaged youngsters. The truth is that the two-year YTS makes the premium places a ghetto for the disadvantaged. Trainees will have to be vetted first by the careers service. We understand that after 1 April disadvantaged youngsters with a handicap, whether they come from a history of trouble in the courts or of absenteeism in the schools, will have to be on special schemes on their own. They will not be integrated with their peers, but will be in ghettos for the disadvantaged. That is wrong. I hope that if I am wrong, the Minister will clear up that point later.
The effects on the career service will be bad. Members of the executive of the Institute of Careers Officers came to see me about this. They are extremely worried. They feel that the scheme will turn our education and youth training schemes into ghettos for such young people. The careers service is—

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
The careers service is terribly overstretched. I understand that a previous Minister in the Department of Employment seriously considered abolishing the careers service. Thank heaven, that lunacy was avoided. The careers service needs to be expanded and better resourced soon. I am sure that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden will agree with me on that. The reduction of places on mode B schemes has led to the reality that 70,000 places have slipped to 40,000, and new funding arrangements are driving schemes out of operation. Others are being forced into unsuitable survival mergers, and experienced trainers are being forced on to the dole.

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way.
When the previous reduction from 90,000 to 70,000 was announced, there were assurances that that would be the bottom line.
The fourth fiction that the Government are putting about is that there are jobs and a great future at the end of YTS. That is not so. One cannot build an education and training policy in an environment of mass unemployment for young people. Some 100,000 trainees a year—30 per cent.—graduate straight on to the dole. In all, 1·25 million young people are on the dole and 500,000 have been unemployed for more than six months. Unemployment in the economy as a whole is increasing year after year under a Government who have run out of ideas, out of steam and very nearly out of Ministers.
I hope that the Minister will listen particularly to this item. The Government are failing, in particular, YTS entrants from April to September 1985. They cannot look to the two-year YTS, but they also cannot look to the late, unlamented, young workers scheme, which bribed employers by allowing them to give low wages to young people. That section will get nothing by way of help into employment. Those entrants will be more disadvantaged in seeking employment than any other group over the past 10 years.
The last fiction is the richest of all. It is the fiction that is in some ways the most hurtful to many young men and women on YTS. I spoke to some of them last week. It is surprising that the Manpower Services Commission should be so out of touch that it decided that models and actors should be hired to pose as YTS trainees in the £4 million advertising campaign.

Mr. Chris Patten: That is a trivial point.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister says it is a trivial point. That shows how completely out of touch he is with young people aged 16 and 17. Many of them are bitter and angry. Instead of taking some of the 350,000 YTS trainees and using them for the advertisement, Saatchi and Saatchi hired models. Fifteen-year-old Tracy Logan is not a YTS trainee. It is not for her, she says. She was also paid more for an hour's work than a YTS trainee gets in a week. It


was a disgrace, but what else could one expect from an advertising agency, such as Saatchi and Saatchi, which is so closely linked to the Conservative party?

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Mr. Sheerman: The House will remember that during the 1979 general election campaign the Conservative party said "Labour is not working." Saatchi and Saatchi showed people queueing up for jobs. But it did not find unemployed people and pay them to do the job; it got actors and members of the staff of Saatchi and Saatchi to do it. Surely that could have been avoided. It was an insult to the YTS trainees. For an hour's work, Tracy Logan was paid as much as YTS trainees get in a week.
Education and training in this country are at a critical point. YTS, the expansion and development of the curriculum and the changing nature of further education are in the melting pot. The adversity of high unemployment provides us with the opportunity to make urgently needed changes. This opportunity is unparalleled since the introduction nearly 100 years ago of universal schooling. We could be laying the foundations for a wonderful work force in the 21st century. This is Industry Year. However, for unemployed young people as well as for other unemployed people in this country the idea that we are tackling this problem must not turn out to be a fiction. The advertising agencies must not put out the fiction that Industry Year is wonderful and will be the answer to all the problems of unemployment. It must be more than that.
Education and training must do something about getting this country back to work again. None of the policies mentioned by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden or by the Minister of State will work unless there are jobs. Jobs come first. I hope that there will be a real commitment to backing British industry, British Leyland and other British companies and to allowing local authorities to spend money, thereby creating work.
I hope that the Government will see the folly of their ways and that Ministers will say in this debate that they take on board the unanimous, all-party recommendations on long-term unemployment that were made last week by the Select Committee on Employment. Measures that would relieve long-term unemployment would have a knock-on effect upon teachers and pupils. If the morale of those who work in the system can be lifted, there will be some hope for education and training in this country.

Mr. Robert Banks: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) upon using his success in the ballot to raise this extremely important subject.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He attacked the public school system but there has been no confirmation from the Opposition Front Bench that the policy of the Labour party is to destroy the public school system, which would lead to chaos in the teaching profession. The hon. Gentleman then attacked the youth training scheme without saying a single word about the Labour party's policy on replacing YTS, which is under such critical fire.
This debate should deal with the constructive efforts that can be made to deal with the problems that exist in

our society and should concentrate upon the direction which education ought to take during the last quarter of this century. We could spend the whole evening griping about this, that or the other, or griping about the problems caused by the teachers' strike, but it is far more important for the House to direct its thoughts to how best to achieve this country's objectives through our education system being geared to the needs and requirements of our changing society.
Unemployment will be a major factor until the end of this century, and probably beyond it. Unemployment is not a problem for this country alone. It affects Europe and other nations. However, unemployment places a huge responsibility upon education to try to solve the problem of unemployment.
The pattern of our society is changing. People's working lives will be shorter. They will not start work at 18 and continue in work until they are 65. That philosophy will not see us through to the end of this centurty. Young people must be educated to recognise that there will be a change in the pattern of their working lives. They must also be educated to use their leisure time. With a shorter working life, people will have much more leisure. Furthermore, during their working lives people will have an increasing amount of leisure. That is good, but we must ensure that they are able to enjoy themselves both while they are working and after they have retired. Education must ensure that people are educated to use their leisure time productively. In the 1960s it was normal to have two weeks of holiday each year. That has been increased to between five and six weeks a year. By the end of the century it will have increased considerably beyond that.
I pay tribute to the way in which the teaching profession has helped young people to understand the kind of careers that are available to them. It has instilled in them the desire to be enterprising and to be the "doers" of this world. That is a broad statement. However, the teaching profession has provided this country with a generation of young people who are every bit as good as any previous generation. They are probably better than any previous generation. I am speaking almost like an old man who is looking at the generation that will take over from us. The young people of today have an immense fund of talent. That is due to their education in the last few decades. A great deal more must be done. Many have not had the education to give them the tools to provide them with a job. People are still coming out of schools unable to read or write properly. We must recognise that and take steps to improve it.
The technological revolution that is taking place creates many challenges. There is a shift in emphasis towards the high-tech industries in the United States, Japan and South Korea. How are we to grapple with the problems that will emerge from the growth of those industries in those countries which are taking the markets that we must prepare ourselves to obtain? We can do that only by being a fully-fledged member of Europe, working in concert with our European partners. To do that we must provide the scientists, technicians and engineers to generate those industries, not just in Britain but in Europe.
Therefore, it is of immense importance that we give the fullest possible assistance and emphasis to ensuring that our universities, colleges and schools have the resources to provide the scientists and technicians for the scientific advances that will be necessary if we are to maintain our position as a country with a high-tech industry base.


On a lower level, it is important that our connections with industry should be improved. We need to overhaul the structure of education in so far as it is related to industry and commerce. In commerce, I include the service sector because that is a growth area if ever there was one. There may be as many as 350,000 jobs in that sector in the next five years. We must improve the quality of the services that are available to tourists from home and abroad.
It is of immense importance that we see a dovetail arrangement between education, industry and commerce. I do not deny that some connections exist, but they are only a fraction of what is necessary. If a person is to fulfil himself he must have an understanding of what sort of career he wants to take up. That is never an easy process. Some may have an instant desire to be a doctor or to enter a manufacturing company, but the great majority of people do not have the full range of options presented to them. It is through the close connection of industry and education that young people will be able to develop a better idea of the career that they want to take up.
On the other hand, industry, through its connection with education, will have the opportunity to play a part in the school curriculum to ensure that education gives people what industries need. That is immensely important because, even with 3·5 million people unemployed, we suffer from a shortage of people with certain skills; in many cases, basic skills. I am amazed that my constituency has a 9 per cent. unemployment rate—a large figure. I say "large" because the jobcentre has between 400 and 500 jobs or work opportunities and my local paper is full of advertisements for a range of jobs — skilled, semi-skilled, managerial and manual. Something is hugely wrong. Education must ensure that it plays its part in getting closer to local industry and, vice versa, industry must get closer to schools.
Frankly, paying people in industry to go into schools and give a lecture on their products and how their factory operates is not the whole answer. I am against that. It is better to appeal to a person's better nature so that they are doing something because they want to contribute towards the future success of not only their company but the next generation. That is a worthy thing to do. If someone is paid to do that, everybody knows it, and that is not the same as wanting to impart information through a desire to be of assistance.
Much more needs to be done. If the Government, in Industry Year, are to make a contribution to industry, the best measure of all would be to give education full recognition for what it needs to do to bridge the gap between education and industry.

Mr. Michael Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on introducing the motion this afternoon because it gives us an opportunity to debate a matter which lies at the heart of Britain's decline. The way in which hon. Members have forcefully put points on the changes that can and should be made should not be lost on those Ministers who are present.
Britain's existing and potential work force suffers from a lack of training and proper skills and the crisis that we are suffering is enormous. It is that part of the education

system which is most urgently in need of reform. I do not for one minute want to suggest that there are not other parts of the education system that need change and reform but it is among the 14 to 19-year-olds that the urgency of the crisis is felt so dramatically.
There is a crisis in two senses. Young people are often unemployed, untrained and lack any sense of clear purpose about their future. The social results of that condition are becoming daily apparent to everybody — apathy, alienation, irresponsibility and civil unrest.
There is also a crisis for the national economy. Statistics obtained from the Library for just three of our competitors show how bad our training and skill opportunities are. For example, in the United States 78 per cent. of the civilian labour force have some form of high school diploma. In Germany 66 per cent. of the labour force have a form of vocational qualification. In Japan 60 per cent. have a school diploma. The best that the United Kingdom can do is to have 50 per cent of its working population with one CSE pass. The figures speak for themselves in showing the size of the problem we face. I am sure that the Minister does not need me nor any other hon. Member to tell him and his colleagues about the size of the problem.
Two things need to be done. One is the sharp shock treatment which the Government seem to be favouring in other areas of their policy, and the other is a longer-term look at the situation. Action needs to be taken immediately. We must effect proposals to bring immediate change by way of a crash programme and to provide a comprehensive and coherent framework for the education and training of the entire age group.
That major reform may well take a number of years to achieve. It would be impossible for any party to gamble with people's futures and suggest that the matter can be solved overnight or in a few years. It cannot. It will take as long to cure as it has taken to create if we are to do it properly. But we must use fast and effective measures at least to start making amends for the catastrophe that we now face.
The alliance—I speak on behalf of the SDP and the Liberal party—is convinced that the great majority—

Mr. Pawsey: They are not here.

Mr. Hancock: My colleagues are in the same place as the colleagues of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). It is important not to score points as to which hon. Members are present, but to consider the way in which we can combat our problems. Scoring silly political points might do the hon. Gentleman's ego good, but it certainly will not commend us to the people about whose problems we should talk responsibly.
The alliance aims to give the great majority of young people the opportunity to undertake full-time or part-time education and training. If the policies of the alliance are pursued and a crash programme is implemented, young people will have the opportunity to gain money and experience in the world of work. They will have a choice between different career paths and will be able to afford to choose. They will work within an integrated and flexible qualifications system. Our proposals for reform flow directly from those aims.
The proposals in the crash programme will be steps on the way towards a realisation of long-term proposals. The


first step must be to recognise that the link between education and training is indivisible. It is damaging to categorise youngsters into groups because, invariably, it means that many do not fulfil their potential. The fundamental steps must be to combine the Department of Education and Science with the Manpower Services Commission. At present, there is an overlap between the two, jealousy, unnecessary competition and lack of co-ordination. A combined education, science and training Department would, in the eyes of the alliance, result in wide decentralisation with local authorities playing a key role. The Minister of State referred to that key role. It is important for local authorities to give a push to a project to provide more opportunities for more people.
The purpose of our programme should be to produce in as short a period as possible a turnround in the numbers entering courses and qualifying at all levels. The courses should be relevant to the skill shortages in specific areas. The Secretary of State is likely to be frustrated in his attempts to increase the number of engineering degree students because not enough people are qualified to take up the extra places. The alliance's programme would concentrate on pre-degree courses leading directly to entry to higher education or to technician or craft-level courses. We would start immediately, using existing institutions and training mechanisms which would, in the end, be integrated into long-term programmes.
Much would have to be done to achieve our aims. We would need money and a Government committed to spending it on education and training, not merely to talking about it. The sum of £200 million for each year of the programme, which might run to three or four years, would have to be provided if it was to be seen to work. We would need a joint team from the Department of Education and Science and the MSC to conduct the programme. That team would assess the bids and stimulate the proposals that would fulfil certain criteria. I ask the Minister to consider those criteria seriously. They include increasing the numbers on courses in skill shortage areas, increasing the number of likely applicants to fill higher education shortage areas and boosting basic skills, which would result in people able to fit the first two categories. Priority would be given to courses in high unemployment areas.
Funding could be given through subsidies to fund additional apprenticeships and bursaries for students returning to full-time study or relevant courses after a year or two in employment, on YTS, or even on the dole. When I was responsible for apprentice training in one of the factories where I worked, the company missed many opportunities because it was not prepared to invest sufficient money in training its workforce. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred to the cost of machinery lying idle while people were being trained. Proper investment in a proper apprenticeship scheme would have saved that company from incurring losses. The apprentices would have learned from day one what was necessary to perfect the skills they would undoubtedly need for new technology and existing practices.
Funding could be given also to special programmes to enable people to return to education rather than sign on for the dole. Funding of training courses could provide the necessary teachers and trainers. We often talk about training people, but do not provide proper training for the trainers. This results in sub-standard training in an attempt to convince ourselves that we are training people for the

future. In the short term, we have only invested money in people who are inappropriately trained to pass on their skills and expertise.
The crash programme would, by its nature, concentrate on limited objectives in trying to solve a short-term problem. We must reform the whole system if we are to cope with long-term problems. Young people in the 16 to 19-year-old group fall into four categories — the employed, the majority of whom have no training and a minority of whom are released for daytime study; those in full-time education; those who are on Government training schemes—mainly YTS; and the unemployed.
The cardinal aim of any long-term change in policy must be to make it possible for people in the last category to join the first three. Our proposals are directed towards enhancing access to and the quality of education and training for the first three groups.
Often the alliance is criticised for not having policies relating to the needs of the people, but on training, as in so many respects, our policies have been well thought out and well costed. They aim to meet the needs of existing communities and future needs. We believe that there should be a legal obligation on all employers of 16 and 17-year-olds to release them for education and training for two days a week, or its equivalent. If necessary, such an obligation on the employer could be matched by a contract of employment which obligates the employee to attend such courses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): Is that idea meant to be appropriate to small businesses? Would they be required to allow some of their employees to be absent for two days a week?

Mr. Hancock: Small businesses and large companies must accept the obligations. Many small businesses have enjoyed the facilities of YTS and the skills of those people lucky enough to be given proper training. It is no good absolving a company from responsibility on the grounds of it being a large or a small company. This must be seen to be a fair and equitable measure across the board. If it causes problems for some companies, we would hope that resources would be found to provide not only training and expertise but to allow the company to give employees that time off. That is why I referred to the need for money. This picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh about the cost incurred when the machines were not operating.

Mr. Holt: Is it alliance policy to direct firms to take people on? Many small firms will not take on people if legislation to this effect is introduced. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said earlier, he would have heard me say that the capital cost of major plant is such that it must be kept in operation for 24 hours a day and is therefore not available for training. I think that the hon. Gentleman missed the point.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is rather pessimistic. If the scheme is properly funded and brought into operation, those points can be covered. It would be absurd to suggest that small businesses can cope with the absence of two or three trainees for two days a week or with machinery lying idle for longer periods. If the scheme is put together correctly and is properly funded and planned—in contrast to the ad hoc approach at present


—it could work. The pessimism of hon. Members has led many small employers to feel reluctant about embracing schemes of mutual benefit to the whole nation.
We must first recognise the imperfections of our training and try to develop it and encourage small business men to participate. We will get nowhere all the time we place obstacles in the way of a solution. I hope that hon. Members will try to develop a better understanding of training and encourage employers to look more favourably at such proposals.
I hope that there will be major improvements in the youth training scheme and an increase in off-the-job training to the equivalent of two days a week. We should welcome the expansion of information technology centres.
The Government should support a shared starter-job scheme as an alternative to my first and second proposals. They should show that support in those areas where they are directly responsible for employment and training. They would be jobs rather than training schemes. The starting salary could be split between two young people. They would each work half a week and receive training during the other half. The Government should cover the cost of the training and the additional employment cost. The cost would not be as much as is sometimes paid out in benefits now. Employers and the nation would benefit.
There should be a young student grant paid directly to full-time students aged 16 to 19 years. That could be paid to all students or means tested fairly according to the family's income. Child allowance would continue to be paid to the parents and the young student grant would be the difference between the child allowance and supplementary benefit. If the Government were prepared to accept that proposal, an impediment towards getting things moving could be removed.

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Hancock: I must continue. Other hon. Members wish to speak and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make whatever political points he wants.
In addition, a young returners grant could be paid to students returning to full-time education after a year or more on the YTS, in employment or unemployment. It would be aimed at boosting the number of part-time craft and technical courses which should increasingly take the place of apprenticeship.
Grants should be paid to those young people with the motive and ability to benefit. They should be means tested according to individual, not family income.
All those proposals will cost money. It is no good us congratulating the hon. Member for Saffron Walden on bringing the issue before the House. We should all be prepared to tell the nation that there will be a price to be paid. If we do not pay that price, the circumstances I quoted earlier will continue. We shall be putting our heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away. Our experience over the past 10 years tells us that the problem will not go away. It will worsen. Those hon. Members who have tried to score cheap political points should not suggest that my proposals provide no answer to the problem. The proposals could benefit us in the future.

Mr. Chris Patten: I do not wish to make a cheap political point, but how much will those proposals cost?

Mr. Hancock: They would be expensive. The crash starter scheme programme would cost £200 million a year on present costings. The long-term proposals would be extremely expensive.

Mr. Patten: How much?

Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister tell us how much is being spent on youth unemployment benefit and other payments, when he replies? The two figures would not be significantly different. We should decide whether we are prepared to pay the price of doing nothing, or pay what I suggest is not significantly different from what we are paying now. Failure to implement my proposals will mean that debates such as this are no more than words.
I am sure that the unemployed are sick to death of hearing people talk about the problem. They want to see action. They want an opportunity to obtain the skills and training which will put them into the jobs that the Minister and his colleagues are keen to tell the House are available if people put their minds to obtaining them.
We all know that without training and expertise, youngsters will never be able to fill those posts. Employers will be unable to create more jobs unless the Government and local authorities are prepared to work together to create jobs and make the atmosphere for job creation a damned sight more attractive than it is at present.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said. I noted carefully that he was speaking on behalf of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. I should, however, be interested to know what is the detailed cost of his proposals. It was not good enough to say that the reasoned objections and questions from Members on this side of the House were cheap political points and to dismiss them. He sought to produce a reasoned argument and it was right for him to be asked what the proposals would cost. I was disappointed with his answer to my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned apprentices. I am sure that he would agree that part of our problem is that in the United Kingdom apprentices are paid about 60 per cent. of a skilled man's rate. In West Germany, the equivalent figure is 20 per cent. He might agree that that is the principal reason why we have fewer apprentices than West Germany.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is not in his place. He referred to the teachers' dispute. He sought to make what seemed to be a genuinely political point on pay. I was disappointed but not surprised that he did not recognise the importance of my right hon. Friend's package of £1·25 billion which has been obtained from the Treasury for teachers' pay. I was also disappointed that he did not respond to my hon. Friend the Minister's challenge when he said that teachers' pay is now about £800 per annum more when compared with the pay they received when his party was in power.
I add my congratulations to those already heaped upon the head of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on his good fortune and on selecting such an admirable motion. In this, as in most things, it is important to come first. I do not feel any sour grapes even though I drew motion No. 3.
Had I been successful, my motion would have referred to the south Warwickshire coalfield and would have


outlined my anxiety about it and the way in which it will affect the environment of my constituency. Nevertheless, I freely acknowledge the importance of this motion. Education for 14 to 19-year-olds is most important. I shall paraphrase George Orwell: whilst all education is important, some parts perhaps are more important than others.
The National Association of Head Teachers report has been mentioned and has much to commend it. There should be a freer and easier exchange between education and industry — between the schools and colleges and industry. Currently, it is fashionable to talk about flexible retirement. We should be discussing flexible school leaving with early leaving being tied closely to effective training. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer to the technical and vocational education initiative. I should like to see greater use made of centres of excellence. They are often seen as being only for the academic but there is no reason why that should be the case. They could equally be used to concentrate the best technical minds.
Those who would not find their way to such centres could remain in the school environment for their secondary education. It often happens, however, that children are taught in what seems to be an educational vacuum, where the outside world scarcely impinges upon the work carried out in the classroom and where study has little discernible relevance to a future job. Learning for learning's sake is always to be commended, but what may be of greater value is education which prepares young people for industry and commerce. After all, that is where the majority of our young people will earn their living. We should not be ashamed to say that we educate our children for work, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden on the use of that phrase. It is one which obviously has particular relevance to this debate. I believe, as I am sure he does, that the syllabus should have a greater relevance to the job market.
Another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden was that this is Industry Year and it was noteworthy that he referred specifically to that in his motion. This specially designated year sets out to bridge the still considerable gap between school and industry. Much useful work is being done and the breadth of imagination that is being displayed by some schools and companies is worthwhile. This year might be the launch pad, but it is important that the impetus should be maintained next year and the years after. One of our aims, therefore, should be to reforge the link between education and industry. In the past, at least to some extent, that was performed by the technical schools. In those schools and their sister institutions, the technical colleges, education was provided which had a particular bias towards the type of industry in a particular area. For example, in Coventry education was directed towards the automobile industry whereas in Bradford it was directed towards textiles.
Even some of the teachers and lecturers in those schools and colleges had a practical experience of a specific industry. That was of substantial benefit to the young people in the schools and colleges because the teachers brought with them knowledge of the shop floor and the workplace. These days, those who teach often have limited experience of business and industry, having gone from school to college and back to school again. It is no wonder that some teachers are a little uncertain about

industry. It is no wonder that when our young people leave school they often regard industry as a last resort. It sometimes seems to be a daunting and strange place.
It is unfortunate that after 11 years, or thereabouts, of full-time education so many of our young people are ill-equipped for what is expected of them. Since the experience of many teachers is confined to school and college it can be no surprise when they promote, probably unintentionally, the professions because they understand the professions better than industry, with its emphasis on skills, management and profit. Therefore, it seems that there is a need for a shift in teacher training so that teachers are more exposed to the demands of the factory and the office and have a better understanding of the requirements of modern business. The syllabus and the ethos of teacher-training colleges should reflect a greater understanding of the needs of industry.
I have referred to centres of excellence. The selective schools, both grammar and technical, did much good. is significant that the selective system has been maintained in such differing countries as France, Germany and the Soviet Union. One of the paradoxes to which I have referred on previous occasions in the House is that, despite doubling the money spent on education, standards have not significantly improved. That point has been hammered home by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and I am delighted to see him in his place on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has also referred to that point, and he was justified in so doing.
I have referred to Northern Ireland where examination results have shown a dramatic improvement when compared with those of England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Nonsense.

Mr. Pawsey: With respect, the hon. Gentleman should see the figures. If he saw and understood them, he would have difficulty in refuting my point about Northern Ireland and the type of education now enjoyed in the Province.
Northern Ireland is the only place in the United Kingdom which has maintained a selective system and I would argue that Northern Ireland would be an admirable benchmark for the rest of the United Kingdom against which the present system might be judged. I shall paraphrase a former Member of the House when I say, "Why look into the crystal ball when one can read the examination results?"
Earlier I argued for an easier movement of young people between industry, college and school, but I believe that that should be founded on the bedrock of school stability. That is often best provided by the maintenance of sixth forms within the established fabric of schools. I am convinced that the sixth form does a great deal for the individual and the school which retains that system.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend the parliamentary private secretary agreeing with me. I am certain that I am not embarrassing my hon. Friend in any way, but if I am I shall withdraw my earlier remark!
Certainly the sixth form promotes a sense of responsibility and significantly, where colleges of further education exist alongside schools with sixth forms, the majority of pupils elect to stay within the school


framework rather than transfer to the greater freedom of the college. In many cases, young people of 16 are not ready for college and prefer the continuity and discipline of school. I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State say that no system of tertiary education would be imposed. Clearly, as he said, there is a place for variety and choice within the education system.
Schools would benefit from having greater control over ther own budgets. Governing bodies and heads would have more freedom and responsibility to decide on the syllabus within their own school. I suspect that that would lead to a more relevant form of education, particularly if it was allied to a method which made it easier for parents to choose between schools. This is not a debate on the voucher, but I believe that more choice for parents would put greater pressure on schools to provide the type of education and discipline that would best give young people a chance of getting a worthwhile job.
I welcome the GCSE, but I realise that not all children will derive benefit from it. Those who are less suited to academic education should be provided with real and worthwhile training in relevant skills. If languages or physics are genuinely of little interest to a specific pupil, why not then concentrate on bringing out the strength of that pupil? That, in turn, will develop the confidence which comes with an appreciation of skills. It is better to do that than to develop a sense of inadequacy through repeated failures.
The problems in education have been visible for years. We should remember that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) called for a great debate 10 years ago. Ten years ago, it was recognised that all was not well. Education was not and, I fear, is not up to parents' expectations. The education system has not delivered the goods.
The battery of measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced during his tenure of office, particularly on teacher appraisal, will undoubtedly help. I hope that the common sense that has been exhibited by my right hon. Friend will be recognised by teachers and by parents. Surely it is right that the good, conscientious teacher — thank God that they are in the majority — should be adequately rewarded and that professional pride be restored.
I conclude by repeating a point I made when we last debated education. In 1976, the performance did not match the rhetoric. For the sake of our children and their future—and the nation's future—I hope that that will not be the case in 1986.

6 pm

Mr. John Golding: The Government are very good at one thing, and that is demolition. Indeed, when the Prime Minister is finally driven out by the wolves, or perhaps the sheep, I believe that she will turn her back on south-east London and make for the north. I can see her now, running amok, blowing up chimney stacks, with the light shining in her eyes, because this is a Government of demolition experts.
The Government are good at demolition, but they are useless at building. Nowhere is that seen to be more true than in training. They have smashed what was and put too little in its place, except for the 16 and 17-years-olds. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary, I was responsible for

training in the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), and it was not an easy job. Training does not arouse much emotion, interest or concern, unlike unemployment, with which I also had to deal. The staff engaged on training were the least effective in the Manpower Services Commission because they did not have the right background. The industrial training boards were far better, but there were one or two bad ones. Many employers at local level just did not want to train, and there were even trade unionists whose love of tradition and rules stemming from antiquity would have qualified them for your distinguished office, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Those of us who wanted improvement constantly sought changes, trying to harmonise the MSC and the industrial training boards, trying to ensure that training met actual need at both local and industrial level, trying to ensure that both the quality and quantity of training were correct and, most difficult of all, trying to ensure that the arrangements for payment for training were equitable. We tried, and we tried hard, but it was a hard, slow process. It had to be because we were dealing with people who had a lot of pride in their current arrangements and a lot of prejudice, too. When one deals with people's pride and prejudice, one needs to be cautious, careful and considerate while persuading them to change. It was a slow job, which we did not finish before the general election.
Then came the so-called Tory radicals. Like most revolutionaries, they acted on the presumption that all one has to do is smash what exists and everything will be all right for ever more. The revolution, in itself, will bring forth the natural goodness of people, by making them free. That was the Tory revolutionary doctrine.
As I listened to Tory Ministers spouting after their 1979 victory, I was reminded of Russian Communist propaganda films that I watched and laughed at as a boy. So I laughed somewhat bitterly when I was told by Tory Employment Ministers that, after the smashing of much of the industrial training boards system, voluntary arrangements would herald a new dawn. Freedom, self-help and individual initiative are to be encouraged, of course, but one cannot rely on them alone in training. Sometimes one needs rules, discipline and compulsion to make people behave properly towards one another and society as a whole. My experience tells me that in training one needs rules that can be enforced. However, Tory Employment Ministers have acted like parents who have placed too much faith in the teachings of Dr. Spock and then acted unreasonably, angrily and bitterly because their offspring have failed to turn out like the book. They have gone from over-indulgence to becoming screaming, gibbering wrecks in no time at all.
Ministers took away the statutory obligation to train. Now they are running from one dinner to another, pouring out press releases as they go, being critical of the employers' lack of training facilities.

Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there never was a statutory obligation to train? There was a statutory obligation to pay for training, and many people never did any training at all.

Mr. Golding: I accept that correction, but the training took place, and taking away the statutory obligation to pay has taken away the training itself in many instances.


Let us return to the preaching. My advice to Ministers is that there is no point in that preaching. They should save their breath, and, at those dinners, give their puddings time to settle rather than make those useless speeches. The employers' attitude is quite clear. According to the old rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but press releases never hurt me." The press department in the Department of Employment should recognise that.
In any case, press releases do not tell the shareholders that companies are not spending money on training which is not immediately necessary to maintain a firm's profits. The nub of the problem of training is this. It does not necessarily pay an individual firm to spend money on training. We must emphasise that. It is no use telling a firm that it is in its interests to train when the accountants say that it is not. It is cheaper to poach. One can pay higher dividends to shareholders if one ignores the needs of the next decade. That is regrettable and I represent work people who desperately need training and retraining. In private industry investment in machines shows up on the balance sheet, and investment in people does not. That is something that Ministers must come to understand.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman is an old friend of mine. I relied on his interventions in the Committee on the British Telecommunications Bill to carry me on for months. He is entitled, after two minutes in the Chamber, to make a three-minute intervention in my speech, but I say this first. There is a conflict between the interests of existing shareholders and the needs of the country's industry and work people.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman was obviously deep in his notes earlier on when I was previously in the Chamber. However, I am grateful to him for giving way. The hon. Gentleman seeks to represent one of our largest and most important private industries. Is that private industry—I am sure that he is dying to tell us anyhow—doing sufficient training at the moment?

Mr. Golding: The answer is no, but I had not intended to make an election speech this evening.
I believe that a company's obligation to its shareholders means that we must have a wide basis of statutory obligation — the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) would say for payment—backed by a system of payment that is fair to employers and taxpayers. Without statutory obligation, the needs of the young will be neglected, the need for training and retraining older workers to avoid redundancy and unemployment will be ignored and the development of individual potential will be neglected. I emphasise, as I always wish to do in debates on training, that training is not only for the needs of employers, but for the needs of individuals so that their potential can be fully developed. Without a statutory obligation, the whole future of our manufacturing and industrial society will be put at risk.
The only answer to the question "What shall we do when the oil money runs out?" is that we must rely on the tremendous talent and abilities of the British people. That answer will carry no conviction if the Government carry on with their present policy of depriving industrial training of its rightful place in society.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on his foresight in bringing forward the motion today.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: One problem with following such a constructive and farsighted speech as that by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) is that the ideas in my speech that seemed innovative when I wrote it earlier suddenly do not look so original. Although I agree with my hon. Friend on many matters, one of his most telling comments was that a great success of the Government has been their policies on education and training. We have generated a whole change of attitude that has enabled an end to be seen to an underqualified and underdeveloped work force that has led to an underpaid and an underemployed work force.
We have seen changes in the attitude of employers, who recognise that investment in people is necessary and that they must train if they are to compete and to produce innovative products and if their growth is not to be restricted by skill shortages.
We have seen a change of attitude by unions, who recognise that a lower wage does not necessarily equate to slave labour or pose a threat to adult members of the unions, but is simply a reflection of the costs of an employer's investment in people.
Young people have changed their attitudes. They recognise that they are not qualified to seek proper work at 16 years of age. They are prepared to defer immediate earnings for enhanced prospects and greater rewards later.
The Government and those three constituents have accepted the need for change, but there is still much to achieve. We must not sit back. We must go on to achieve more. Young people need better preparation to know what they want from life and career. We must identify skill shortages and produce schemes to overcome them. We must co-ordinate school and workplace qualifications. Industry must spend more than the average 0·5 per cent. that it spends now on training to reach a figure closer to the 3 per cent. on average spent by our competitors. We must provide post-YTS provision and above all we must rid the youth training scheme of the stigma that it is only for the unemployed. As long as it is seen by young people as the second-best option, it will never have the credibility and respect that it deserves.
We are now providing the paths that lead from school to industry. However, young people wish to be advised about which path to take. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, have raised that point. I pay tribute to careers staff who do magnificent work at a difficult time. But careers advice to young people in our schools is wholly inadequate. Staff are expected to know everything. They have to advise young people who want to be bus drivers and those who want to be astronauts, those who want to be hairdressers and those who want to become Members of Parliament, God help them. They are backed up by out-of-date and unattractive material.
The careers service needs a shake-up. It must be better resourced, but we must also specialise and concentrate the advice in centres, so that people can, for example, watch attractive videos showing what training is needed or what is involved in each career. Specialist careers advisers are needed for those centres to advise on their special subjects.


If a young person wishes to become a bank manager, he could go to the specialist who knows how banks work and what training and qualifications are needed.
Those materials and advisers should be made available to people from the age of 13 and 14, so that they can map out their future at an early stage. Otherwise, we shall continue with the current system in which careers advice in many schools means that the bright are shoved in the direction of university and college and the not so bright must fend for themselves.
We must open up wider horizons for young people in schools, so that they can appreciate the opportunities available to them other than those into which they are traditionally channelled because of what their parents do or the type of community in which they are brought up. They should be shown at an early age what core subjects they should take to provide them with the career that they want.
In the inner cities especially, we need to provide young people with hope through careers advice. From the early age of 12 or 13, they see little point in being diligent at school and in choosing career paths, because those openings are not available to them. I recently visited a school in a part of my constituency which has a male unemployment rate of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. We must ensure that careers teachers and advisers can counter that problem by showing children that making the right choices can push them in the right direction and enhance their chances of success. We must not allow young people of 13 to 15 to despair or become disillusioned. They must see that there is hope and opportunity for them.
The careers service should be shaken up. We should scrap the post of careers teachers. By all means, have a link person in schools, but all the careers service should be concentrated under one roof. Specialist centres should be opened, so that existing resources are concentrated instead of being spread thinly.
We must encourage careers teachers to rid schoolchildren of the idea that when they leave school at 16 they are ready for work. We must ensure that 16-year-olds realise that they must continue with further education and training before they are suitable for employment.
Links between colleges and industry are a great help. I am especially pleased that Bradford, with two thirds of its schools linked with industry, is above the average for cities.
We must ensure that colleges and the courses that they run are flexible to industry's demands. As hon. Members have mentioned, colleges must be properly equipped with the machinery to train people to provide the skills that industry needs. One way to help is to allow companies' donations to educational institutions in the form of equipment or cash to be offset against taxation, in an effort to free more resources for colleges.
Through local consortia and chambers of commerce, we must identify skill shortages. My city is in the ludicrous position that 40 per cent. of the long-term vacancies are still vacant because training is needed. The local consortia could suggest opportunities for business, because they could identify goods that could and should be produced by local businesses and help to train people for those opportunities.
From secondary school onwards, we must prepare young people in a way that allows them to make the

maximum use of their time. Even the middle schools, with children aged between nine and 13, should be linked with the upper schools and we must co-ordinate pre-school leaving and post-school leaving qualifications, so that we end the situation in which many people discover, on reaching adulthood, that the exams that they took at school were irrelevant.
We must ensure that the time spent studying for GCSE or CPVE is useful for career progression and can be further developed during post-school training to gain a final work-based qualification.
If we are to ensure that the advantages of all the changes that we are seeing in education and in training and all the advantages of going on a youth training scheme are not wasted, we must ask, "What happens after YTS?" Fortunately, more and more companies are becoming farsighted enough to incorporate the YTS into their existing training schemes; the electrical contractors are a shining example of that.
Already, 38 per cent. of those who go on the YTS and get jobs go into placements offering higher levels and longer periods of training. However, despite all the guidance and the training, some will remain unemployed. We must ensure that that is not the end of the line for them and that they do not feel that they have been forgotten. We can add to the credibility of and respect for the YTS by ensuring that there is something at the end of it. The most often voiced criticism of the YTS is that there is nothing at the end.
The Government cannot guarantee a job and should not do so, but they can guarantee continued opportunties for self-development. There are already a wide range of voluntary schemes and MSC-funded schemes in our cities, but they lack co-ordination, use thinly scattered resources and are provided haphazardly. We should increase the facilities available and make greater use of existing resources. Why not open the universities and polytechnics during the evenings and weekends, when millions of pounds worth of equipment is left idle, training no one? Similarly, the capital provision exists for TVEI, the ITECs and training centres. That could be used for the benefit of the community. No allowances would be necessary; further training and qualifications for the unemployed would be the incentive.
We should always be looking to encourage self-employment as an option. A recent youth survey showed that 30 per cent. of young people wanted to be their own bosses. Indeed 25 per cent. of those who had taken up the enterprise allowance were under 25. Through the schools and the YTS, we must continue to advise young people on how they can become self-employed and run their own businesses.
I should like the enterprise allowance to be extended so that those who leave the YTS do not have to be unemployed for three months before taking advantage of the scheme. We should provide a scheme that pays young people from the moment they leave the YTS to help them to set up their own businesses. I believe that young people would respond to such a scheme which would remove the anomaly that they must be unemployed before they can go into business on their own.
At last we are getting it right and it is important that vocational education and youth training should be for all. It must be for the bright as well as for the not so bright. We need to encourage the more able young people to


consider new career paths and not only the safe options. One merely has to look at the quality of some British management to see how much training is needed.
By training the strong to achieve their full potential, we help the weak. The most significant achievement of our vocational education and youth training programme is that we are helping the weak to achieve aims that they would not have thought of achieving if Government help had not been available. They are finding new talents, perhaps through gaining employment as programmers or by setting up their own businesses.
Baseless criticism of the YTS is becoming progressively less sustainable. Unions that do not participate hamper industry and deny opportunities to young people. Companies that do not offer places are short-sighted and ignore the direct correlation between more training and better performances. Groups such as the Labour party and Youthaid, which purport to represent the interests of young people, actually destroy prospects every time they put someone off joining the YTS. Those groups have a strange idea of what is in the best interests of young people. It is like Greenpeace campaigning for lower taxes on harpoons.
As Youthaid reports, 10 out of 11 young people opt for the youth training scheme and 84 per cent. of those on the scheme are happy. That is a remarkable success story and one that any product manager would be delirious to achieve for the launch of a new product.
For too long this country has relied on the strong to help the weak. Effective vocational education and youth training allows the weak to help themselves to become strong.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be helpful if I announce that I understand that the Front-Bench speakers would like to start at 6.45 pm. A number of hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate and I hope that they will bear that in mind.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on initiating the debate. It has been a fascinating discussion and there has not been too much dispute between Conservative Members and some Labour Members on a number of issues.
About 10 years ago an old and wise friend of mine said that we ought not to talk about "education" and "training", but that we should use the word "learning". From the day we are born till the day we die, we never stop learning. As babies and children, we learn from our parents and we progress through nursery school — if we are lucky enough to have such schools in our area—to primary school, secondary school, college, university or work experience and training. The last thing we learn is how to die—and we never repeat that experience.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden made a significant point about linking education and training. There has been a division between the two for far too long. We need to change that. The suggestions of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden should be noted by the Government because they would provide a good base on which to work.
The hon. Member also mentioned the need for a department of education and training. I support that suggestion, though I should prefer the title of department of learning.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the relationship between local education authorities and the MSC. I have known occasions when the relationship was so bad that the two sides, were virtually not talking to each other. That is a sad reflection of the way that training has developed and of the difference between the funding for the MSC to support training and the funding for local education authorities.
Two or three years ago the education authority in my county had discussions with the MSC and one of the principal reasons why a local technical college was able to stay open and provide the facilities that it was built for was that we got funding from the MSC and allowed young people to use part of the premises to occupy their time. It involved about £650,000—a form of blackmail from the MSC to the education department to provide space for its programme. That space was intended for the specific purpose of training young people in higher skills than those being offered by the MSC. I do not criticise its training of young people, but the facility was not being used for its intended purpose.
I went through the traditional training system—I was an engineering apprentice for five years. Apprenticeships lasted from the age of 16 to the age of 21 — so if someone was 16 years and 2 days, he could not obtain an apprenticeship. I was 15 years 11 months when I was offered my apprenticeship, so I was rather fortunate. It was very clear cut, and the formula was based on the old craft guilds. The apprentices, journeymen and craftsmen followed a set procedure that dated back to the middle ages.
The pattern has changed and we have moved from five-year apprenticeships to four-year or even three-year apprenticeships, depending on the skills required, However, we are not adjusting in industry to those changes. We still talk about apprenticeships, but we should put them in the right context. Both employers and trade unions must look again at craft training and apprenticeships. Indeed, it may prove necessary to dispense with that whole aspect and instead think of training and retraining, regardless of age.
We are in a vacuum because the old system is disappearing and there is no new system to take its place, and that is creating many problems. The education service is under pressure because of the reduction in Government spending. The Ashington technical college in my constituency is doing a magnificent job, but it has to cover a county of about 50 miles by 50 miles. It cannot adequately provide for those living in the more rural parts. The college has developed an annexe system which, although good, could be better with the right investment. I am very proud of that college; indeed, I am an ex-student of it. In the good days it had money to buy equipment and provide facilities. With the cuts in spending today, young people are not having the right opportunity to develop their skills.
Conservative Members have referred to the training of those aged 14 and over in local industry. I remember when the coal industry was predominant in my constituency. By the end of the second world war, young people were conditioned to entering the coal industry, although they might also have had to enter the Army for a short time.


There was no alternative for them. A 10-year-old was aware that he would be a miner. Times have changed, and so has industry.
I could not support a system where the emphasis in schools was placed on conditioning children of 14-plus to become virtual clones for local industry. Training in and understanding of industry is one matter, but the training of young people for only one industry is quite another matter, and I would not be happy to support that.
There has been some discussion about the industrial input in training colleges. I remember when mature students, sometimes with 10 or 15 years industrial background, undertook teacher-training. That was an excellent scheme. Today, we could not find anyone who would willingly leave industry to train as a teacher. That is the sad part of the current trend.
Industries in my constituency underuse their training facilities because they cannot afford apprentices. They would be happy to take on more young people if there was some Government support. I am fortunate to be involved in the Industry and Parliament Trust and I am also seconded to the North-West electricity board, which has an excellent training centre just outside Manchester. It would be happy to train young people at that centre, which is underused, but it does not have the necessary finances. There should be financial support for that sort of scheme.
I am glad that we have been given the opportunity today to discuss these issues. I hope that there will be a number of other occasions when we can discuss them again so that we can eventually obtain the system that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden genuinely supports, and which I support in principle.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The theme of the debate has been partnership, and the partners within the system are, first, the children and young people who want their curiosity satisfied. That means stretching them. I served on the Swann committee for five years. The message that came from every part of the country was that young people were dissatisfied with their education because they were not stretched, not because they were being taught too much. However, I think that there is too much teaching of the sort that Mr. Gradgrind indulged in—filling little pitchers with fact. Speaking as a former university teacher, I met far too many students who entered university far past their learning peak. They had achieved entry by being crammed for exams by skilful schools. They no longer had a great deal of intellectual curiosity, so their three years at university were often disappointing for them and for their teachers.
Secondly, the teachers are currently an issue in themselves. One of the great problems is that they are torn between the manifest demand outside teaching for specialists in robotics, maths, physics and other subjects and their ineradicable belief that no differentiation in salary should be made between one faculty and another. It is an important and difficult question to which too many teachers do not pay sufficient attention.
The third partner in the group is the board of governors of a school. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said that we should pay business men to take on the governorship of schools, but that is not the reason why they do not sit on those boards. It is

because it is a non-job. It is an important, difficult and taxing task, but the amount of decision-making open to them is derisory. No one worth his salt would come out of business to do that job. We must devolve real authority to the governors.
Of course, we must consider the parents. It is sad that at a time when parents have so much leisure—more than they have ever had in our history—teachers teachers are almost unanimous in saying that involving parents is virtually impossible. I do not blame the parents. During the 1960s and 1970s teachers spent a great deal of time saying, "Hands off—this is a specialist job. Anything you bring to the school will be old-fashioned, out of date and tiresome. Will you kindly leave us alone to get on with the job of teaching your child in a modern way?" Having sown that wind, they are now reaping the whirlwind and finding great difficulty in persuading parents to assist in schools—despite the fact that many of them would be glad to do so.
The Government must give serious attention to videos. More than half the households in Britain have a video. I am prepared to bet that entertainments represent 95 per cent. of the programmes on those videos. We have to develop a major programme of educational videos for pupils to take home with them and use on their home videos. Half of the pupils would lack the self-motivation to do that properly, and they could stay on at school to be taught in classes which themselves would be halved. The other pupils would spend their time at home learning from the masters of the trade and in a form to which they have grown accustomed. We need a modern day Carnegie. If we cannot find one, the Government will have to do it for themselves. The Government will have to set up a massive trust—ideos, unlike books, are expensive to produce—to provide copyright-free videos so that people, without pirating them, can copy them for their children.

Mr. Sheerman: The Open University would do that tomorrow.

Mr. Rowe: The Open University may well do it tomorrow, but it takes up to six years to produce a video, and that would be too long.
The employers are the last link in the partnership, and it is true that they do not know what they want. The Government have been coherent and right in their approach to the qualifications net. We have to develop a method of choosing people by aptitude rather than by qualification.
We should allow teachers far more opportunity to train and retrain but it will be expensive to do that. We should seriously consider whether our school terms are not too long. We use our schools as a social control mechanism, and for that reason people keep their children at school for many months of the year. In practice, much of what goes on in schools could be condensed without loss. If one did that, there would be more time for teachers, as part of their contract, to be trained and retrained in ways that they would like. I believe that children could be found placements in industry and thus gain experience.
It is sound that the Manpower Services Commission should be the engine for so much of this change because the Government have some authority over the MSC, whereas they have no real authority over the national education system. However, I know from my own constituency that schools are finding it increasingly


difficult in Industry Year to find work placements for children because of the demands of the expanded youth training scheme. The Government must remember what their left hand and right hand are doing.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I understand that I have only three minutes to speak. If I could spend the time agreeing with the motion, that would be enough, but there are harsh realities to be faced. I never cease to be amazed by the bland effrontery of the Tories when they put forward this type of motion:
That this House calls for future policy towards 14 to 19 year olds to be based on a close integration of education, training and the Youth Service, taking full account of the aims and objectives of Industry Year.
We talk about Industry Year, but let us be clear: it should be called "Lack of Industry Year" or "Death of Industry Year" because of the Government's actions. That is the reality that young people face.
The Government have talked about close integration. We would love close integration, but there is disintegration of the entire education system in Britain because of the sheer brutality of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Prime Minister. The right hon. Lady has ordered the Minister virtually to destroy industry. British industry is in the greatest crisis that has ever been witnessed because of the Tories—and they talk with bland effrontery as if they really mean what is said in the motion.
I heard the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), wealthy and well-heeled, talk about unemployment dominating us until the end of this century. Left to the Conservative party and to him, of course it will. We have to face the fact that unemployment is not an act of God, although the Government talk as if it were. It is an act of this Government under the system in which they believe. The Government do not know how to handle the system in which they profoundly believe. Therefore, within the framework of that system they do not know how to handle the state system of education. The Government are pouring money into private education and taking it away from public education.
The Government have talked about education, training, youth service and leisure. They have given plenty of leisure to the youth of this country and they are now putting them on training schemes largely to keep them off the unemployment registers. If one added young people to the unemployment list, there would be 4 million unemployed. That is harsh reality, no matter what the Government say.
Within the three minutes I have had at my disposal I have not been able to do what I have done in every education debate and every education Question Time in the past 12 years—discuss how to advance the cause of education. The one thing that will advance the cause of education in Britain is to get rid of this Government. We must fund education properly and value our teachers and children properly. The Government will never do that until they are made to do so by the people of this country, represented by the Labour party.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): My reply to this debate gives me a golden opportunity not only to thank my

hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) for initiating the debate with his excellent speech but for his distinguished career in youth and community service over many years. Many of us remember him, between 1966 and 1968, as a very distinguished chairman of the Young Conservatives. My hon. Friend had a special ability to organise conferences such as the one we have witnessed this weekend. He subsequently went on to be chairman of the Manchester youth and community service council.
My hon. Friend also played a significant part in the programme entitled "Youth Charter Towards 2000". He also has the dubious honour of being the Member who sponsored me for the Conservative parliamentary candidates list. This speech gives me the first opportunity to thank him publicly for that. Despite his latter digression, his judgment in these matters is normally sound and his concern for education and community development is certainly unquestioned.
My hon. Friend, in speaking to his motion, was skilful in cataloguing the various schemes which have been introduced in the past seven years. I welcome his praise of many of them. I also welcome his suggestion that there should be greater coherence if we are to achieve the various targets we have set ourselves. Not least of these is our attempt to increase awareness in the minds of the young of what programmes are available and to convince them and their parents that we have a common and integrated approach throughout Government.
All the speakers in the debate seem to have agreed on one thing—that young people represent the future. If we do not give them the chance to develop the skills they need and do not encourage the right outlook, prospects must suffer. The well-being of this country depends on our giving young people the knowledge and understanding to build the nation's ability to create wealth. For this reason, much depends on our approach to education and training of the young.
There are several key elements in that approach, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden. We must offer a wide range of choices and opportunities. We must give access to marketable skills and establish schemes and a system which are coherent in philosophy and practice. More than that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, we must bring young people into contact with the world at work and develop the enterprise culture early. We must change attitudes and make the development of enterprise and initiative a common feature of education and training for young people.
I noticed that the word enterprise was generally lacking in the speeches of Opposition Members. There were only one or two exceptions. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) left it until the last gasp of his speech, and then mentioned it only in passing when he said that the Labour party wants local authorities to encourage enterprise. We appreciate that local authorities play a part, but they should not take the lead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) said, we must stimulate and develop enterprise this year. Those whom we are trying to encourage—the Government and local government — represent the acceptable face of bureaucracy, and we ignore that at our peril.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden mentioned the opportunity that this year offers. He wanted an improvement in the interface between industrialists and


educationists. The initiative of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce is to be welcomed and encouraged. It has the support of the Government, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, professional organisations, the churches, women's groups and many others who perhaps realise, as I do, that we should have done this 30 or 40 years ago, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Education and Science said.
It is widely accepted that, irrespective of whether we like it—we do not—there is in Britain today an anti-industry, anti-enterprise and anti-profit culture. Things have improved considerably while the Government have been in office—we can point to clear evidence of that. However, we do not pay sufficient regard to industries that provide the wealth that pays for the essential services that we have come to accept such as better schools, hospitals and roads. The strand that joined the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and Labour Members, when outlining the fantastic programmes that they say that they will get involved in—they say that they will throw the cheque book at every problem—is that they never spell out the detail of their programmes or say where the money will come from.
Industry Year is designed to start to change cultural attitudes so that, once again, the most talented people will choose to work in industry. It is important to stress that the definition of industry being used this year includes tradable goods and services that people need and want. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) rightly reminded us that we are not talking solely about manufacturing industry, but about the important service sector as well.

Mr. Mark Fisher: You never do.

Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman reads our White Paper on regional policy of nearly two years ago, he will see that we chose our words carefully. He will see that the grants that are made available, principally through the Department of Trade and Industry, have been confined to manufacturing industry—that we have discriminated in favour of the manufacturing sector. We signalled a change by saying in the White Paper that we would no longer discriminate against the service sector. We have wide support for that view, and so we should. We have looked across the Atlantic and seen where the new jobs have come from there. Growth, wealth creation, and employment creation have come principally from the service sector.

Mr. Holt: Did my hon. Friend see the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, speaking on television, when he said that his party is committed to introducing higher taxation for the very people who must be induced to go into industry to provide the entrepreneurial skill that we so desperately need?

Mr. Fisher: The top 5 per cent.

Mr. Trippier: I saw that programme. I was enthralled that the Leader of the Opposition referred to enterprise, which I welcomed. He said that there would have to be an increase in taxation—

Mr. Fisher: For the top 5 per cent.

Mr. Trippier: Quite frankly, the top 5 per cent. do not bring in the money necessary for the programmes that the Opposition are talking about. I cannot think of anything that would be more of a brake on enterprise or act more as a disincentive to those we are trying to encourage than the Government taking more of their earnings, with the result that the risks that they take are not adequately rewarded.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that we have witnessed the destruction of enterprise in the past six years? As I said in my speech, if the Government do not do something to resuscitate industry, constituencies such as the Minister's and mine, in which 45 per cent. of youth training scheme leavers go on to the dole queue, will have no employment to offer because there will be no enterprise. What will the Government do about that?

Mr. Trippier: There is not much of a debate on this issue because the Labour party's record in government is appalling. Its policies for entrepreneurs and enterprise were non-existent. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be my shadow opposite number, including my responsibility for small firms, and I find it extremely difficult to stomach the fact that the Labour party has not mentioned enterprise or small firms in either of its last two manifestos. It has no interest in encouraging such activity.
The Industry Year message must be put across strongly to the education sector. The generation in education now is that from which most of our future entrepreneurs will be attracted. However, the attitude of parents is important, and the Industry Year message is aimed at them, too. There is little point in persuading students to look to industry for careers if their parents still try to steer them towards the so-called softer options, which at the moment unfortunately assume higher status. Parents must be convinced of the importance of industry and enterprise. We hope that companies will hold open days for the local community so that everybody can understand and appreciate how much industry contributes to the local and national well-being.
It is essential that companies and schools form closer links, perhaps by companies adopting a local school. This is a two-way process. Students can learn about industry, and companies would be able to contribute and perhaps alter the learning process so that children develop the right skills. I should like all school leavers to be able to understand a simple business plan and a balance sheet. I wish that I had received such training at school.
I am not convinced about tax allowances for industrialists, but that is obviously a matter that I should have to refer to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in any event. I tend to agree with colleagues who answered that argument. It is far better to encourage people to come in from industry to speak in schools. That is improving all the time. The Department of Education and Science and the Department of Trade and Industry are involved in promoting knowledge of industry among schoolchildren through the industry education unit in the Department of Trade and Industry, which is running an interesting scheme called the mini-enterprise in schools project, in conjunction with the National Westminster bank. The target is to have at least one mini-enterprise in every secondary school by the end of Industry Year. That is quite a target—there are about 7,000 secondary schools—but at least 30 per cent. are already covered. The projects give


youngsters an opportunity to understand the pleasures and pitfalls of business life while at school. It will give them a good understanding of enterprise.
I warmly welcome what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said about the youth training scheme. This is the first time that I have heard it said publicly that the Labour party broadly — I am not taking the hon. Gentleman's words out of context—supports YTS. I do not want there to be a partisan attitude towards the scheme. The hon. Gentleman knows that members of the TUC are commissioners of the scheme. It is a first-class scheme and has helped many youngsters to find full-time employment. It is the best youth scheme that we have ever introduced.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, we have had an opportunity to discuss the issues early this year. I hope that the message of this important year will be understood, and that its relevance to young people will better equip them for the challenge and opportunity offered to the nation in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House calls for future policy towards 14 to 19 year olds to be based on a close integration of education, training and the Youth Service, taking full account of the aims and objectives of Industry Year.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Transport, I should announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
As a long list of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, I intend to give priority to those who were not called when we last debated this important matter on 9 December.

7 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Government's White Paper on the Channel Fixed Link (Cmnd. 9735).
I am delighted, but surprised, that the Opposition want this debate on the Channel tunnel. I am delighted because many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have important points to raise, and surprised because I do not understand what the Opposition seek to gain. Perhaps they want to embarrass the Liberals, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is in favour of our decision, but the Liberal candidates in east Kent are all against it. That is strange. The Liberal manifesto for the 1984 Euro-elections advocated
Community Investment in major transport links, including a Channel Tunnel".
I wonder whether the Kent Liberal candidates dissociated themselves from the manifesto at the time of the campaign.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I continue to support our manifesto, and the Secretary of State congratulated me on that recently during Question Time. I suspect that some Conservative Back-Bench Members are not keen on the scheme.

Mr. Ridley: I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman. I was merely wondering whether he could have a word with some of his candidates.
The Labour party also has its problems. Some Labour Members are in favour of our decision, and some are against it. So why choose to debate it? It puts the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in a terribly embarrassing position. He must steer between the Scylla of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who represents the National Union of Railwaymen, and the Charybdis of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who represents the National Union of Seamen. It is beastly of the Labour party to make him run the gauntlet again between those two political rocks. Surely he found it unpleasant enough the first time.
But the Labour party has a worse failure to answer for. Labour Members keep demanding more infrastructure spending. They have debate after debate about the need for spending, and more jobs. Indeed, there is another one this week. Yet here is a massive infrastructure project, which will create a great number of jobs—we estimate about 40,000 man-years of employment. The jobs will by no means all be in the south-east. There could be orders of £700 million to £800 million for railway equipment alone which can be fulfilled only by midlands and northern firms. There are also great opportunities for more employment on railway operations. The tunnel will bring benefits to all regions of the kingdom by providing quicker, cheaper, more reliable means of transport to the Continent, thus helping employment. But what does the


Labour party do? It voted against the tunnel before Christmas, and it has a three-line whip to vote for its amendment tonight. Does it want jobs, and infrastructure, and investment, or not?
When I announced the invitation to promoters last year the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who was then Labour's transport spokesman, said:
We welcome any suggestion of considerable investment in the infrastructure. Indeed, we have been asking the Government for many years for precisely this sort of infrastructure development, with its impact on jobs and industry."—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76 c. 1078-79.].
How can the Opposition say that with one transport spokesman, and with another ask the House to vote against the project that they welcomed? The Labour party's inconsistency is extraordinary, although some individual hon. Members hold different views.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The main point is that the infrastructure development will assist the south-east. Many of us are worried that the White Paper pays no regard to transport links with the north. The bottlenecks around London will become more constricted, not less, as a result of the link. Expenditure is needed on the road network to the north, but that will be even harder as a result of the Channel link. The right hon. Gentleman should be providing better links to the north, not to London.

Mr. Ridley: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the link and sees the importance of connecting it to all areas, and I entirely agree. For that reason we are building the M40 as a relief to the Ml. It is as quick to go from London to Birmingham up the M6 via Oxford as it is via the Ml. There is massive infrastructure development taking traffic from the south-east to all quarters. There is a huge road programme to the south-west. Wherever we can, we are investing in roads to improve the position. Moreover, there are great opportunities for the railways to run through services from the north to the Continent. The right hon. Gentleman must welcome our decision and encourage all concerned to grasp the opportunities.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What evidence prompted my right hon. Friend to make the statement that the Channel tunnel could offer a "cheaper" means of transport across the Channel? Does he accept that the more British people hear about the tunnel, the less they like it? That is clear from a recent opinion poll which shows that more than half the population do not want the tunnel, and that only one third are in favour of it.

Mr. Ridley: First, the magic has worked even quicker than I believed because the ferries are now saying that they will cut the cost of the journey by 30 per cent. That is even before the tunnel is built. Therefore, my hon. Friend must concede that the tunnel route is cheaper. That shows what a little competition can do. Secondly, if my hon. Friend intends to steer a course according to every favourable opinion poll, I do not know what he will do when they are unfavourable. That is not a sound basis for forming opinions.
There is another dilemma. The Labour party complains that all the benefits of the tunnel will go to east Kent, and not to the north of England. But my right hon. and hon.

Friends from Kent have expressed the opposite concern, that the tunnel will have unfortunate employment effects on the county. Let me tell the House my view of the truth, which is also contained in the White Paper.
For the next eight years, during the construction period, there will be growing employment in Kent, both because of the increasing ferry business, and the construction work on the tunnel, roads, railways and so on. There could even be a shortage of labour during that period. In the long term, after the tunnel is open, a great deal depends upon the extent to which it attracts traffic which would otherwise be carried by the ferries, and also upon the extent to which local authorities in Kent can use, imaginatively, the opportunities created by the link to generate new employment in the county. When the link opens, employment on the ferries will certainly fall. On the basis of the promoters' estimates of traffic, the Government judge that the total direct employment on cross-Channel transport operations will be some 1,500 less than it is now. But thereafter, employment will rise again, both on the link and the ferries. Moreover, there will be jobs from associated developments, so I suggest that the truth is that the long-term employment effects are fairly neutral.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is anxiety in the Medway towns that the very considerable infrastructure improvements to cope with the direct effects of the fixed link may militate against the essential project which the Medway towns are proposing to improve what is almost the blackest unemployment spot in Kent. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Medway towns that he will look with considerable sympathy upon their proposals for a third Medway crossing?

Mr. Ridley: The M20 is the main road to the Channel ports and will be the main road to the Channel tunnel. That road will be developed to three lane motorway standard irrespective of whether there is a Channel link. Traffic going to the Channel ports will be so great that it will demand that upgrading in any case. Building the link does not add to the road programme in respect of that road as that road is already allowed for in the programme. In no sense is money being taken from other parts of the road programme because of the decision on the fixed link.
I have already said that we shall look extremely sympathetically at any other roads needs which arise in Kent because of the link, and the discussions are already planned to start such an investigation.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the employment consequences which he said would amount to a loss of only 1,500 jobs at the ferry ports, I draw his attention to the fact that that figure is based on what, by the White Paper's own admission, is a most misleading basis. The White Paper bases that calculation on two ferry ports only, Dover and Folkestone. My right hon. Friend must know that there are well founded fears in at least 15 ports up and down the country, including the second largest Channel port, Ramsgate, which is not mentioned in the White Paper. One would not base a calculation on test cricket on the basis of what happened at Lords or the Oval and make no mention of Old Trafford, Headingley, Trent Bridge, and so on.

Mr. Ridley: I was a little confused about the last part of my hon. Friend's intervention and I confess I do not see the relevance of that, but the figure I gave was based on the estimates of tunnel traffic made by the Channel Tunnel Group. That includes the whole of the ferry industry, not just the two ports that my hon. Friend mentioned. We believe that some ferry ports will increase employment as the link opens rather than reduce their employment. I cannot give my hon. Friend detailed figures for every port. I would have to have the wisdom of Solomon to say what will happen, but my hon. Friend knows my views about the future of Ramsgate.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I recently wrote to the right hon. Gentleman to ask if his Department had estimated the effect which the Channel tunnel would have on the container ports. He replied that that information was confidential. How is it possible for container ports to plan for the future if they do not know what the tunnel's effect will be on their trade?

Mr. Ridley: That is true of all industrial enterprises at all times. When the west coast ports lost business to the east coast, nobody was able to warn them or provide any precise estimates. That is normal business risk. It is quite impossible to make a detailed forecast of the effect on every port.
The White Paper sets out the reasons for our choice of the Channel Tunnel Group's scheme. This was the joint choice of the British and French Governments. Both Governments would have liked to see a drive-through scheme, but the uncertainties and risks of all three drive-through alternatives led us to believe that there was a risk that they might prove too expensive to finance. I repeat that no Government funds or guarantees will be available. The CTG scheme appeared to the Governments to offer the best prospect of proceeding to completion. It has other advantages as well and these are set out in detail in annexe B of the White Paper.
The main purpose of the White Paper is to look forward. It is not the job of the Government to set out the virtues of the CTG scheme and its potential attractiveness to customers and therefore to investors. That is for the promoters to do over the next few months as they set about raising the capital. We believe the Channel tunnel will greatly enhance the choice for travellers between Britain and France by adding to the existing air and ferry options a shuttle service for road vehicles and an efficient city-centre to city-centre rail link. For road travellers, the shuttle link will reduce the crossing time, with all stops included, by well over half compared with the ferries.
The rail link from London to Paris and Brussels will be very competitive with air transport. These are great benefits. Already, there is talk of reducing fares in order to compete. That, too, is excellent news. The Government's task is solely to consider the impacts of the scheme upon the transport network, and the environment.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Surely the Government's task is to consider the impact on employment. Paragraph 39 of the White Paper states:
Firms in the East and West Midlands will be well placed to compete for contracts to build the shuttle trains, and there are firms in Scotland and the North-East able to supply construction materials.
As the Minister knows full well, I believe that the Channel tunnel will have a negative effect on jobs in the north-east. We shall lose jobs as a consequence. It might

help the situation if the Minister can give me a guarantee that the construction materials that firms in the north-east are able to supply will be the ones which the tunnel builders will order or will the Minister say that it is a free for all where the construction firms can shop around the Continent and the world and get their goods at the cheapest price?

Mr. Ridley: I have already dealt with the employment aspects. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said, he can read it in Hansard. I made it clear what the employment consequences are likely to be. I said that in my opinion the jobs which will go to the midlands, the north and Scotland were considerable as there were £700 million to £800 million worth of railway orders alone to go, as well as the building material orders to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He knows full well that I cannot promise that those orders would go to any particular firm. His constituents have the opportunity to gain employment if they can win these contracts. I am certain that they have a very good chance of doing so.
I was about to describe the effects on the transport network. British Rail is to invest between £290 million and £390 million in rolling stock, the Waterloo terminal and certain other limited improvements between Folkestone and London. The impact upon the roads programme in the foreseeable future is not large. The Government's proposals for the M20 from London to Folkestone are already in the programme and would be necessary whether a fixed link were built or not. We shall also press ahead as fast as possible with the replacement of the A20 between Folkestone and Dover. We shall also consider with Kent county council what improvements to local roads may be necessary.
The environmental impacts of the Channel Tunnel Group's scheme are set out in some detail in the appraisal by Land Use Consultants and their associates of the promoters' environmental impact assessments. That is a valuable independent report. It does not necessarily represent the Government's views on all points, but it forms the basis of the Government's assessment of the environmental aspects of the further work that needs to be done. It quite deliberately looks far into the future.
It is not surprising that if one looks 30, 40 or 50 years ahead, the M20 may need to be widened to four lanes in each direction. It will not, by any means, be the only motorway requiring such treatment by then. It would be for our successors to deal with these problems. In the short term, however, our concern is to make the scheme environmentally as acceptable as possible, in matters such as the arrangements for the disposal of spoil, the workings at the foot of the Shakespeare cliff, the landscaping of the Cheriton site, and the arrangements for the construction of the tunnels under Holywell Coombe.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the important impacts could be the attraction of freight away from the roads and back to rail when the Continental freight network is linked with the British network and substantial savings are achieved? Has he received any more recent estimates of the impact of that change, and does he recall that an earlier estimate was that only about 250,000 tonnes of road freight would go to rail? Will he comment on whether that is rather an underestimate? Does he agree that it might be considerably


more than that, with great benefit for the environment generally and a reduction in the number of heavy lorries rolling through villages?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I speak without having a figure before me, but I think that the latest estimate is that there may be a fivefold increase in the amount of freight that the railways carry across the Channel as a result of the project. If I have misremembered the figure, I shall correct myself in writing to my right hon. Friend. There will be a considerable increase.
We have retained the right to require the promoters to investigate and then implement the most acceptable arrangements, and the promoters accept this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I intend to work closely together on this and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport will be consulting locally in Kent about it. If he is fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will describe the plans for consultation.
With the tunnel becoming nearer to a reality, the natural conservatism of the British people is coming to the fore. Will rabies come? Will the Russians invade along the tunnel? Should Britain not remain an island? I sympathise with these emotional arguments, but I do not believe that they are rational. I shall conclude by answering the most frequently asked question, which is "Do we really need a tunnel?" Those who do not want to use it need not do so. Nor will they be asked to pay for it. But if millions want to use it and pay for using it, whether they be tourists, businessmen, importers or exporters, what right have we to stop them? It is for the Channel Tunnel Group to persuade the investors that we need a tunnel. If it considers that it should be built and is ready to pay for it, I do not think that the House would want to stop it.

Mr. Jim Craigen: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way. I must bring my remarks to an end.
It is remarkable that the two Governments were in the invidious position of having to choose between four schemes. All were well prepared and those behind them were prepared to raise the money and to take the risks. What a transformation this is from the drab, centrally planned, Socialist concept of soak the taxpayers and ram it down their throats because the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. It is a sign of the virility of our entrepreneurs, our economy and our engineers that we can give the Channel tunnel the green light.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'whilst accepting that the Channel Tunnel Group-France Manche scheme may have the potential to encourage the development of modern British Rail network and bring benefit to some parts of the country, declines to approve the White Paper "The Channel Fixed Link", Cmnd. 9735, without full knowledge of the terms of the Treaty and its Protocols, without any Government commitment to necessary financial assistance to British Rail, without any Government plans to maximise the opportunities for industry and communities away from the immediate location of the Fixed Link, and without the Government accepting responsibility for and safeguarding against the damaging employment implications of the scheme, or providing adequately for the rights of those affected by the decision to have their views

taken into account; and recognises that the proposals present a threat to consumer choice in crossing the Channel with the creation of a private monopoly with its implications for prices and charges, without the guaranteed continuation of port and ferry facilities.'.
Three hours to debate what has been described as a historic decision is far too short a time. I apologise to the House in advance if I do not give way to interventions as frequently as I might have done. There are a lot of issues to be covered, many of which were not covered by the Secretary of State.
In the speeches and statements and in the White Paper, the Secretary of State repeats that the Charnel tunnel is an imaginative and exciting project. He has waxed eloquent about the job creation factors of the scheme and the benefits that he hopes will accrue. When he has been asked pertinent and penetrating questions, he has replied, "All will be revealed in the White Paper." We have the White Paper now and there is little in it, if anything, which could not have been put before us a fortnight ago. There is nothing in it which could have delayed its publication for a few days, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but which became a fortnight.
We accept that the CTG-FM scheme is the best of the schemes that the Government examined. In our view, it suits our transport needs and provides opportunities for British Rail. We believe that it could allow the benefits for some parts of the country to be distributed more evenly. If we were starting afresh to consider job creation schemes, we might well not start from where we are now. However, we are starting with the Government's decision, and we have a responsibility to ensure that the best outcome is achieved. We have tabled a positive amendment, and we are not defensive about it.
The problem is that the Secretary of State, having made a decision—or having had it made for him—wishes to cut and run. He wishes to avoid responsibility for developments that are damaging to the economies of various parts of the country and for the necessary planning to maximise potential benefits. He has prepared his alibi well in advance. In page 2 of the White Paper there is an all-embracing disclaimer which appears as a footnote:
* The Government expressly asserts that it makes no representation, either express or implied, as to the viability of the project with any intention or desire that such representation be relied upon by any investor. It should be noted that, in this White Paper, estimates of CTG-FM's financing needs are their own, and the impacts of the CTG-FM scheme — on employment, the environment, the merchant fleet etc.—are all based upon the promoters' estimates of traffic.
I cannot recall seeing such a massive cop-out in any other White Paper. We shall press the Secretary of State to accept the figures and to take the action appropriate to them.
The treaty is due to be signed on Wednesday. It is unfortunate that the White Paper gives us only the broadest outline of what the treaty contains. We are merely told in paragraph 50 that the treaty
will also enshrine the private sector nature of the link and the concessionaire's right to compensation in the event of political interference or cancellation by either Government.
Can we not be told, less than two days before the treaty is signed, what the financial penalties are that the Government have negotiated? Why are we being asked, in effect, to buy a pig in a poke? Surely the Prime Minister will not sign a blank piece of paper in Canterbury in less than 48 hours from now?


Paragraphs 53 to 60 tell us that negotiations will continue on the concession agreement and that the final package will contain the freedom to set tariffs, subject only to the European Community's and the Government's rules on competition. These and many other issues need to be clarified.
I was disappointed when the Secretary of State told us that he would leave the consultation arrangements to be dealt with by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport when he replies to the debate. The White Paper suggests what will happen. The Secretary of State from the beginning ruled out a formal public inquiry. In earlier debates he has asserted that the hybrid Bill procedure gave better opportunities for those affected to canvas their concerns, and it is clear in the White Paper that he has conceded his failure to convince a wide section of opinion in the House. Equally, he has failed to satisfy the doubts of many interests in Kent, for example. In paragraphs 46 to 48 he attempts to present a more convincing case and to answer the many representations that have been made on consultation.
I shall deal with paragraph 48 in some detail. It seems that an extra statutory authority of planning machinery is to be established between the Government, the Kent county council and the other local authorities concerned. We understand that the committee will be chaired by the Minister of State and that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), will be involved in discussions. I note that the hon. Lady is in her place.
We are told in paragraph 48 that there will be widespread consultations. It adds:
Among the subjects to be considered by the committee will be the adequacy of the road system in Kent to cope with the traffic flows expected to follow the building of the link, and specific local economic and environmental problems that may be caused by the development of the link. As one of its first tasks the committee is expected to commission a more detailed study of the potential impact on Kent of the CTG-FM scheme both during and after construction. This is to be carried out with the widest possible consultation of relevant interest groups in the county.
So far so good, but what will be the result of the consultation? Everyone knows that there will be economic dislocation of the local economy. That appears not to be in doubt.
Paragraph 41 makes it clear that 7,000 jobs will go in the ports and ferries if the promoters' forecasts are accurate. Several questions follow from paragraph 48. To whom will the consultative committee report? When will it report? Who will carry out the detailed study of the potential impact on Kent? A responsible Government would have carried out those studies before, not after, taking a decision in principle.
Further questions will have to be posed. Will the consultation group make recommendations? There would seem to be no point in having such a formal machinery, nor in commissioning these studies, unless the schemes are drawn up and acted upon. Will the findings of the consultative group be finalised and incorporated into the drafting of the hybrid Bill? What will be the effect of the consultations on those who may wish to petition the Select Committees which are due to be set up under the hybrid Bill procedure? If any of those affected by the scheme take part in the consultations, will they be prevented from gaining access to the Select Committees?
Paragraph 62 of the White Paper sets out the hybrid Bill procedure and attempts to define the term locus standi. In paragraph 62, the Minister, trying to assuage the feelings of his Back Benchers, says:
However, the Government, as sponsor of the Bill, will not seek to oppose the right of anyone to appear before the Committees on a petition to secure protection, either for their personal interests, or for the proper interests of any organisation or group which they may have been appointed to represent.
The use of the word "proper" seems to be a heavy qualification on who will go before the Select Committees. Will the Secretary of State give a categorical guarantee that appearance before the consultation group or submission of objections to it will neither prejudice the right of petitioners to appear before the Select Committees nor extinguish those rights? Unless these questions are answered fully, the consultative machinery will be seen as nothing more than a gigantic public relations exercise and a hoax on the public.
At the heart of our concern is what will happen not just to the south-east, but to the rest of the country. If the economic benefit is to be distributed about the country, British Rail must be given the opportunity to develop its services and to have its infrastructure, its motive power and rolling stock ready for the opening of the tunnel. Therefore, I welcome the British Rail press statement, issued on 4 February, in which it explains how it intends to run through-trains from different parts of the country and hopes that there will be discussions with immigration and customs officials to have these facilities carried out on the train, although there seems to be some doubt as to whether those bodies will co-operate.
British Rail, in its press statement, appears to be thinking ahead, even if the Secretary of State is not. If the required investment is made available, it will give a boost to British Rail's estimates of both freight and passenger services; and if the money is spent in the United Kingdom, jobs will be created. However, I dispute the Secretary of State's assessment of when the investment needs to be made available and whether his policy towards British Rail is adequate to match its requirements.
At Question Time on Monday 3 February, in column 6, I asked the Minister to give an assurance that British Rail's external financing limit would be expanded to accommodate Channel tunnel-related expenditure and that other BR expenditure would not suffer. It astonished me when I was given such an unequivocal "Yes" to that question. However, in a subsequent answer in the same column, he back-pedalled very fast and said that BR's EFL would be smaller during the period 1990–93 in any event. If that means that the investment and infrastructure will be in place before that time, we might accept it. However, I suspect that the opposite is the case. I believe that investment in BR must be expanded, even if the Channel tunnel is not to go ahead. If passengers and freight traffic are to be encouraged back to the railways, then BR's customer image needs to be enhanced throughout the entire network, and not just that part that is related to the Channel tunnel service.
The Government must put money into BR. The White Paper concedes that there will be public spending associated with the tunnel. That much is evident from paragraphs 29, 30 and 31. There is a little hedging in paragraph 31, which says:


The Government will give sympathetic consideration to supporting with Transport Supplementary Grant proposals from the County Council arising directly as a result of the fixed link project.
We know with certainty that public money will be going into roads development. Why, then, will the Government not do the same for British Rail? Paragraph 27 makes it clear beyond any doubt:
It will be for BR to raise the money for this"—
that is all the investment about which we have spoken—
as for all its investment programmes, out of its own resources or borrowing, and not by way of Government grant.
Nothing can be more clear that the Government will not put any money in.
In paragraph 66, the Minister expresses his hopes in this way:
The Government has high hopes of seeing the link built and of it becoming a valuable national asset serving the interests of the nation for many years to come.
I should like to see those high hopes come to fruition, but they will remain just pious hopes unless there is positive Government intervention.
I commend to the House the latest issue of Town and Country Planning. In an article called "Where have all the planners gone?", Andrew Thorburn says:
So far, no one has sketched out the consequences for Britain of the funnelling of traffic through this small corner, and the extra traffic likely to be stimulated … Never has the need for proper regional planning been more apparent.
Some have felt that we can get by without this in times of recession when little is changing, but the construction of the largest infrastructure provision in Britain's history will require the rethinking of many development and investment policies, and rural conserveration policies, as well as a review of the transportation services throughout the south east. Where is our machinery for this?
I concede that that was written about the south-east of England, but it is of equal relevance to the country as a whole. The Secretary of State will have nothing to do with this. His view is that if everything goes well, the scheme will be a success; and, if it does not, he is simply abrogating his responsibility in advance. He is like an old lag in a Scottish court pleading the special defence of "incrimination" or "impeachment". He is saying, "It wasn't me who did it; it was someone else. It was market forces that did it."
Without proper planning, investment and regional development, the nation will come to regret the decision and wonder what went wrong. The Opposition have a duty and a responsibility to the nation to seek to remedy the failings of the Minister and of the Government. We shall press the Government for as long as we are in opposition, and we shall discharge our responsibilities and duties to the nation when we become the Government. I commend our amendment to the House and invite right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House to join us in the Lobby tonight.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I point out the obvious—that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate. The shorter the speeches, the fewer will be disappointed.

Mr. Peter Rees: I shall endeavour to obey your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the

hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow all the interesting points that he made. I admire the delicacy with which he has tried to reconcile the interests of various regions of the kingdom and, in particular, the interests of the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Union of Seamen. My hon. Friends may wish to explore that further.
I was interested to notice that the hon. Gentleman said that, of the four schemes, this is the one that he would prefer. I am ready to admit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that of all the four schemes, this is likely to do the least damage to the economy and environment of east Kent. I was reassured that the environmental point had been made by the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. However, I must emphasise to my right hon. Friend the deep and continuing concern of Dover and east Kent about the project, even though matters have moved on since 9 December.
I appreciate and am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his sensitive response to the points made by me and by some of my hon. Friends who represent Kentish constituencies relating to consultation. I appreciate the setting up of a consultative committee which is to be chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I note that it will be sited at Maidstone. That is appropriate in the first instance, because Maidstone is the seat of the county council. However, I hope that this will not rule out meetings at Dover and Folkestone, which I am sure would be welcomed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who, ever assiduous in his championship of his constituents' interests, is sitting in his seat tonight. We are sorry that the conventions of Government deprive him of the opportunity to make a direct contribution to the debate. I hope also that the consultative committee will not rule out direct, bilateral contact between the Dover and Shepway district councils and the Department of Transport upon matters that are of prime concern to them.
The point is well made in paragraph 64 of the White Paper that this is the largest civil engineering contract for many years. This may be a matter of congratulation to some, but naturally it is a matter of concern to those who will be most directly and immediately affected by the project. It is important that complaints by local people should be quickly and impartially assessed and remedied. I warmly associate myself with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who feels that these complaints should be assessed by an independent person, possibly from the Department of Transport—a local ombudsman, if you will, who would be on the spot for the purpose. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, I hope that he will say that he is giving careful thought to this possibility.
The main environmental impact will be felt at Cheriton, in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency. I have no doubt that he has been and that he will continue to be assiduous in taking up the points that concern those who live in the area. However, there is a little friendly rivalry between my hon. and learned Friend and me. There will be a considerable impact on Dover. I refer in particular to the working platform that is to be set up beneath the Shakespeare cliff and to the disposal of soil there and at other places. I am glad, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred back to the consortium the problem of soil disposal. I hope that this


important and sensitive matter will be discussed either by the consultative committee or bilaterally with the Dover and Shepway councils.
I do not wish to carp, but competition is dealt with all too briefly in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the White Paper. It merely states that there will be fair competition and that the matter will be governed by English and European Community law. I seek, therefore, three assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, although I appreciate that some of them do not lie exclusively within his responsibility. First, I seek an assurance that predatory pricing under these legal systems will be ruled out. Secondly, I seek an assurance that he is satisfied that the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission would be able to move quickly enough if unfair competition were to develop in the Channel. Thirdly, I seek an assurance that he feels that there will be a continuing place for ferries operating in the Channel from Dover and Folkestone. I believe that there is both a national and a Kentish interest in the continuance of their operations.
The economic and employment impacts upon east Kent were touched upon, perhaps too lightly, by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. This is where there is the greatest uncertainty for the people of east Kent, and it is the largest gap in the White Paper. Paragraph 41 admits frankly that there will be fewer direct jobs in east Kent with the link than without it, but there is no consideration of alternative sources of employment, except rather briefly in paragraph 41, which refers to
new jobs in ancillary industries.
This may be a matter primarily for other Departments, but it is important that there should be evidence of deep thinking taking place on this subject now. It cannot be left for six, seven or eight years. Evidence is needed that thought has been given to the possibility of setting up enterprise zones, to the granting of assisted area status, and to the provision of a free port, or free ports, in east Kent. I should like thought to be given to the future of the port of Dover as a container terminal so that it can be built up to compete with Rotterdam. It tells heavily against previous Governments that Rotterdam has managed to catch, in fair competition, so much of the business that should have come to United Kingdom ports.
According to all accounts, the French are pouring money, as they are quite entitled to do, into the Pas de Calais and the surrounding département. I am the first to recognise the constraints upon public expenditure, but I should like to know what positive steps the Government are considering to assist east Kent to maintain its position against the competing attractions of north-west France.
I am sure that the House will not feel that I have dealt in too summary a fashion with this important issue. I hope that my constituents will not feel that I have done so. However, they will recognise that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I have tonight voiced, I hope articulately, the legitimate concerns of my constituents.
I must also point out to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that the Opposition's amendment is rather bogus. It attempts to reconcile too many disparate interests. I recognise the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman's position, but I am sure that he will not expect me to support the Opposition amendment in the Lobby. It does very little, either explicitly or by implication, for my constituents or for the neighbouring constituencies in east Kent.
As for the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, unless and until the concerns that I have voiced are properly met I am bound to maintain the reservations that I expressed about the project in our debate on 9 December. My position in the Division Lobby tonight must reflect those reservations.

Mr. John Silkin: When the Secretary of State rejected instituting an inquiry. he owed a moral duty both to this House and to the country to provide us with a White Paper that fully set out the Government's point of view. In fact, the White Paper is a very slim volume which skims over the important points. The most important question was put by the Select Committee on Transport in paragraph 128 of its first report. It said:
The one question which has persistently hung over the committee's inquiry is 'Is there a need for a fixed link?' The committee has not received any very satisfactory answers to this question.
If it is trying to find the answer in the White Paper, the Select Committee can whistle for it. The nearest to an answer is to be found in paragraph 2, which says:
The Government's policy for international transport is to increase consumer choice and promote efficiency by encouraging competition and innovation.
That is a splendid collection of words, but they mean exactly nothing. They do not explain why a fixed link does all these things or what the benefits will be. The White Paper, therefore, does not answer the question.
Then we thought to ourselves that if the White Paper does not contain the answer, perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport knows the answer. What did he say? I took down his words as he spoke them. He said that he was often asked whether we needed a tunnel, but he did not answer that question. He merely said, "If we do not like it, we need not use it." That is perfectly true. It is like a justification for murder. If we do not like it, we need not use it. That justifies it. That was the right hon. Gentleman's only contribution to the alleged need for a fixed link between Britain and France.
The Secretary of State dealt superficially, as does the White Paper, with the major points that are still at issue. First, there is the environment. During the debate on 9 December I deplored the fact that there had been no input from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have to say that I was wrong. There slipped through the House of Commons, without anybody knowing it or being deeply aware of it, a rather important order. That order came into effect on 1 January 1986. It was a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food order which reflected the licensing provisions under the Dumping at Sea Act 1974.
Heretofore under that Act if one was going to bore a tunnel a licence had to be applied for which might or might not be granted by the Ministry. The order in question says that no licence is required to bore a tunnel under the seabed. When I looked at the Channel Tunnel Group's prospectus, it did not seem that it would be economically possible to do the job that it was talking about on the figure quoted if they were going to dump the spoil — which, you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, comes to 1 million cubic metres — onshore. But if that is to be dumped at sea, a different situation arises. That is the cheapest and easiest way of doing it, and that, incidentally, kills all the spawning herring, sole and plaice in the English Channel.


We heard—I do not want to go too far into it at the moment — the employment difficulties for Kent which the right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) reiterated a moment ago. He is tolerant in thinking that he will get an answer. I doubt that he will. However, those of my hon. Friends who come from the north-east, Wales or Scotland who are worried about the effect of a fixed link across the Channel believe that Kent and the rest of the south-east will benefit at the expense of their parts of the country. I do not believe that any of them will benefit.
The truth is that, as the White Paper hints, there will be a permanent drop in employment in Kent and there will probably be a drop in employment in the rest of the country. The White Paper says that there may be some increased employment in ancillary industries. But, like the right hon. and learned Member for Dover, I too wait for an answer on that. Where are those ancillary industries? What will they produce? What employment will they have? I do not believe it.
There are many points that I could make, but other hon. Members want to speak and there will no doubt be plenty of time on other occasions to do so. However, I want to finish with one small but important aspect—security. In paragraph 2 the White Paper says:
Historically, Britain's island status has often been an advantage. Today it is a practical and economic hindrance to closer links with Europe.
Some of us would dispute that concept anyway, but
Historically, Britain's island status has often been an advantage
is rather an understatement. The plain fact is that that island status has protected this island over the past 1,000 years. It is worth at least a thought or two.
We have seen the Government virtually destroy our fishing industry and cut down on our merchant shipping and they are now talking about a sufficient number of ferries for our defence requirements. No doubt they have a 1914 concept of taking soldiers across the English Channel to some vast trench system in France. By destroying the number of ferries that operate, they are doing the same as destroying our merchant shipping and fishing fleets—they are destroying Britain's capability to produce, as we have over the centuries, the finest sailors in the world. I hope that, if that were all that there were against the provision of a fixed link, it would be sufficient for the House to think again.

Mr. Roger Gale: On 9 December the House took a decision in favour of a fixed link. Those of us who represent north-east Kent did not endorse that decision, but I have no wish to go over that again. It is left to us, representing our constituents, to make the best of what I have described as the least worse solution. In that context—

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the House did not take a decision in principle the last time we debated this subject. We divided on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, nothing more. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to do what he wants tonight.

Mr. Gale: If I may say so, the House might regard that as a bogus point. The matter under discussion and the vote were plain and properly interpreted.
In the context of the decision that has been announced, I am pleased that, of the four that were on offer, the Channel Tunnel Group has obtained the contract because, in its make-up that company represents some of the finest engineering skills in the world. I hope and believe that that company will pay considerable attention to the environmental effect that any construction will have on the beautiful countryside of Kent.
I have one small voice to raise from the heart of Kent, and I hope that it will not be a voice crying in the wilderness. On Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to visit Canterbury. Were she to go a few miles further down the appalling Thanet Way, she would arrive in the Thanet towns, where we endure 27 per cent. male unemployment. That may be an inconvenient fact for my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to acknowledge and it may be an inconvenient fact for the Government to acknowledge. It makes the political map look untidy. There should not be such unemployment in the prosperous south-east, but the fact is that there is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and I have been working hard for a considerable time to try to turn that situation round. We are faced with a declining agriculture industry, which was labour-intensive and is becoming less so, and, with a decline in the bucket and spade holiday, we need to provide facilities that the modern tourist requires so that we can regenerate our tourist industry. That is in hand.
The greatest asset that the Isle of Thanet has is the development of the port of Ramsgate which, in the past few years, as a result of vigorous marketing and tremendous courage on the part of the developer and the district council, has been attracting large numbers of tourists to the region. The demise of that port, not mentioned anywhere in the White Paper by name or in any other form, would be not only damaging but devastating to north-east Kent.
Thanet has created an enterprise agency and built up the East Kent Development Association, but we look to the Kent county council and the Government to provide us with the thing which we cannot provide in any way, shape or form—the infrastructure that we need if the port of Ramsgate is to develop.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was good enough to visit Thanet early in December and, having experienced just a little of what we had to tell him, said that he would be willing to take the key road in the area—the Thanet Way—and trunk it. He told us, and has reaffirmed, that his Department would be willing to do that fairly swiftly. I understand that that decision is dependent upon Kent county council.
However, I am a little worried because there is no mention whatever of north-east Kent in the White Paper. Paragraph 31, headed "The UK Road Network", says:
Kent County Council are studying improvements which may be needed to some County roads in the area as a result of the building of the fixed link; and they will be dealing with them under their normal procedures. The Government will give sympathetic consideration to supporting with Transport Supplementary Grant proposals from the County Council arising directly as a result of the fixed link project.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will state firmly to Kent county council his belief that the Department should make that road a trunk route.
Kent county council should recognise the needs. In "Channel Fixed Link: Issues for Discussion by Kent


County Council", which was published in November 1985, Mr. W. H. Deakin, the county planning officer, wrote:
The County Council's role is to identify the consequences of proposals for Kent, and to maximise the balance of advantage to the County.
He said that the council's objective should be
to give East Kent the best chance of compensating economic activity and employment, by way of securing Government commitment to development incentives; this is especially important, considering the economic advantages possessed by the Region Nord-Pas de Calais in northern France, an area which already enjoys substantial national and European assistance, and which is planning to capitalise to the full on any economic potential of a Fixed Link, and against which Kent would be competing on very unequal terms.
Two weeks ago, I paid a visit to Nord-Pas de Calais when I had the opportunity to discuss the effects of the link with M. Dupilet, the Member of Parliament for Boulogne. He kindly gave me a document which, roughly translated, is entitled "Channel Fixed Link." That document was available to all those who attended a ceremony held in France on 20 January. It sets out, chapter and verse, exactly what the French Government are doing in Nord-Pas de Calais, how much they are spending and on what they are spending it in terms of ports with the development of Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne, in terms of roads with the Boulogne-Dunkirk coast road and many others, and in terms of rail links from existing ports, not some new Chunnel terminal. We have no equal document available to us, because this point has not been considered.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State a few questions. I do not believe in pork barrel politics, but the Government cannot have it both ways. Either we create jobs or we are in the business of destruction. With respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend can ask turkeys to vote for Christmas. Does my hon. Friend recognise the need of north-east Kent. especially the Thanet towns? Does he acknowledge that the Chunnel will have a profound effect on those towns? Does he recognise the need for improved infrastructure, especially of the Thanet Way, the Thanet-Dover coast road and the Thanet-Ashford link? Does he have plans for the establishment of a regional council at ministerial, or at least Civil Service, level to ensure the development of the Thanet, Canterbury, Dover, Ashford and Swale districts, which together make up a region roughly the size of Nord-Pas de Calais? Unless the answer to all those questions is yes, I have a feeling that the fine words which no doubt will be uttered in Canterbury on Wednesday will have a ring as hollow as the Trojan horse.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has done well to remind us that all is not gold in the south-east. His figure of 27 per cent. male unemployment is on a par with the figure in my constituency in the Isle of Wight.
I welcomed the Government's decision when the Secretary of State made his announcement on 20 January. I said then, and I endorse now, that, after various rumours and leaks to the contrary—when we thought we might get a road tunnel—the French and British Governments have chosen the scheme that has the best chance of succeeding. Certainly, if either of the two bridge projects had been favoured there would have been an even greater outcry from Kent citizens than at present, and it would have been fully justified.
I welcome what definitely appears to be an easing of the purse strings for British Rail. That comment appears in the White Paper, covering the years 1990–93, when it is accepted that British Rail's EFL will be exceeded—

Mr. Robert Hughes: No.

Mr. Ross: It is in there. That was also acknowledged last Monday by the Secretary of State when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked him a direct question which I followed up. I hope that some common sense prevails. I hope that the Minister of State, who, I am glad, is keeping his portfolio to look after BR, will continue to press BR's claims for extra capital to carry out the programmes that are desperately needed. There is now a great opportunity for the Channel tunnel link to improve our railways.
Some people have queried with me BR's ability to run through freight services to the continent from various parts of the United Kingdom because of the differences in the loading gauge. The Sunday newspapers wrote a lot about this, including about the argument the other way around—that is, from France to Britain. British Rail's press release of 4 February is clear on this point. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North quoted from it, but I shall quote from the last page, which states:
Freight customers in the North, Midlands, Wales and Scotland stand to gain particularly from the link. Freight will be cleared at inland customs depots round the country. Fast and frequent services through the link will cut transit times significantly and rail's natural economic advantage with long haul traffic will help exporters to be competitive in reaching the markets in Europe.
It states:
Twenty trains a day of containers and freight wagons in each direction will help to keep heavy vehicles off the crowded roads of the South East.
I assume that there are not insurmountable difficulties in dealing with the Berne gauge. That is the assurance. I suspect that there must be considerably more capital investment if we are to take full advantage of the opportunities to provide through freight services for Scotland, the north and the west of England.
I give notice that the alliance will consistently press that point. I hope that the Minister of State will ensure that more financial incentives for private rail sidings throughout Britain will be forthcoming. That would be a great help.
This is a marvellous opportunity to get substantial quantities of freight back on to rail and off our already overcrowded roads. We must take full advantage of it. What is more, construction of the link provides substantial job opportunities at British Rail Engineering Ltd., Metro Cammell and GEC, especially at the BREL factories at Derby, York and Crewe. Swindon will not get in on the act. I bitterly regret that as a long-time supporter of the old Great Western Railway.
Like many hon. Members, I have been lobbied consistently on the question of a public inquiry. In our earlier debate, I put forward a proposal, which was made to the Select Committee on Transport, for a strictly limited 20-day hearing on the vital issues as they affected Kent. I do not intend to press that again because I accept that it has deficiencies. On the whole, I think that the White Paper gives substantial reassurances.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is dropping that proposal. The right hon.


Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) issued a press statement the day the decision was announced saying he would push that proposition forcefully. What has changed?

Mr. Ross: I have argued the point with the leader of my party. I was sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North would pick that up. I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) exactly what I thought. One cannot conduct just a 20-day hearing because every party, including Friends of the Earth and other environmentalists, will want to get in on it. I do not think that the hearing can be cut short. I believe that a 20-day hearing will leave everyone dissatisfied. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is correct—there is an internal argument on this proposal.
On the whole, I think that the White Paper gives substantial reassurances on the issue of consultation and the right to petition. Paragraphs 48 and 62 are especially significant. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Select Committee on Transport, especially the Chairman, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), for supporting my suggestion to the Committee some weeks ago that we should offer to take evidence in Kent. Last Wednesday, we went to Maidstone to take evidence from Kent county council. All three main political parties were represented and had their chance to make their point. Regrettably, that is not the case—I think that I take the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North with me on this—with the consultative committee which the Minister of State is to chair. The consultative committee is to comprise the seven districts and the county council, all of which are Tory controlled. That is a mistake which should be rectified. Surely the other party leaders on the county council and on Dover and Shepway councils—I am sure that we should say the lot—could be included without making the committee top heavy.
I personally accept the arguments against a full-scale public inquiry, but the hybrid Bill Committees must also be prepared to travel to take evidence in Kent. I remind the Labour party that, in 1974, the late Anthony Crosland reintroduced the Channel Tunnel Bill in its original form so that the petitioners would avoid abortive costs. Moreover, he made it clear that he did not think that a rail—only link without the shuttle was economically feasible. That was said in an answer to me on 3 April 1974.
As we have heard, Kent Members have been making clear the need for substantial expenditure on road infrastructure. An undertaking has already been given about the Maidstone bypass becoming a three-lane road, but Kent county council wants to see four lanes. The third Dartford tunnel will have to be constructed. The M25-M26 junction at Chevening needs attention. They are rightly anxious about the substantial loading facilities at Cheriton and the access thereto. The environmental problems have already been mentioned. There is a need to make much greater use of industrial land at Ashford. There is the problem of subsoil disposal. I understand that the material is no use for road construction.
I wish to make a brief constituency point. One of my constituents, Brigadier Hopthrow—he knows what he is talking about because he has been involved in water matters and gravel extraction for many years—has said that there is a rumour that the gravel required for the

Channel tunnel is likely to be dredged from the Channel east of the Nab tower. That would have a substantial effect on littoral drift and erosion on the Isle of Wight. We suspect that we have suffered a great deal from gravel extraction along the south coast and in the Solent. I make the plea that gravel should not be taken from my part of the world to construct the Channel tunnel.
A park-and-ride facility at a suitable spot on the M25 has much to commend it. Commuters from the Ashford area will need reassurance about their future services into London. I shall quote from the second leader in the Daily Telegraph last week. It is not a paper that I normally read, but I found this comment and I fully support it:
If the Channel Tunnel Group, to whom time means money, want to get moving and keep moving, they would be well advised to set aside a substantial sum for damage limitation. If the county's defenders think that the money offered is not enough, it is up to them to demand more. If they want more landscaping, it is for them to demand it. The Government may be able to stay aloof from the finances of the Chunnel; they cannot dissociate themselves from the mess it makes. Usually it is the fate of those seeking to defend their patch to find themselves up against hard-faced bureaucrats in Government employ. In this instance, the bureaucrats are more likely to be on their side against the entrepreneurs. It is not a gift-horse to look in the mouth. Preservationist in East Kent should cheer up, limber up and prepare to make tough terms.
I could not put it better myself. We shall be supporting the Government tonight.

Mr. Peter Fry: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is a fellow member of the Select Committee. I am pleased that he mentioned the M25 because one of the results of the White Paper on the Channel link will be tremendous pressure upon the roads around London. The M25 is overloaded before it has been completed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that considerably more improvements will be needed in future for the many motorists who will be attracted to driving through the Channel link.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) gave a somewhat selective quotation from the Select Committee's reports. He also made great play of the fact that a case for the Channel tunnel did not appear to be made out. At great length, the Opposition have tried to make it clear that they are not against the Channel link. They want to give the impression that they are vaguely against it so that all those who are opposed to any kind of link with the continent will think that they are doing a good job. In their long amendment, they have been exceedingly careful not to say that they are against the link. There is a degree of ambivalence in the Labour party's attitude.

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I may reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am completely against the link.

Mr. Fry: I accept that.
I shall refer to the Select Committee's reports. Of the present Committee membership, only three were members of the Committee when we first embarked upon our lengthy inquiry in 1981. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's quotation, it is interesting to note that the reports in 1981 and just before Christmas came to the same conclusion. Even more surprisingly, the Committee came to the conclusion contained in the White Paper. The Select Committee agreed to the idea of a Channel link. It disagreed with the idea of a public inquiry and it recommended the scheme that the Secretary of State and


the Government have chosen. It must be unique at the moment for a Select Committee to chime in so thoroughly with Government policy.
Our fourth recommendation was that there should be a definitive vote of the House before the scheme proceeded. I should like to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for giving the House that opportunity this evening.
It is interesting to know that it emerged from the Select Committee's investigations that those who are opposed to the Government's proposal can be divided into roughly three groups: first, those who are against any link; secondly, those who do not like the timing or the Government's method of approach; and, thirdly, those who do not like the scheme that has been put forward.
On the first point, it is ironic that some of the people who are against the Channel link are those who write to me saying how they object to so much of our freight being carried on the roads and not on British Rail. The Channel link has always been seen by British Rail as a major opportunity for it to take advantage of the length of carriage which this country lacks. That has always put British Rail at a disadvantage compared with many of its continental cousins.
The link will mean that for the first time British Rail can compete equally. It should have the opportunity to take many of the tonnes of freight that many of our constituents complain about because it obstructs our roads. British Rail has always been firmly in favour of the Channel link. For that reason alone, the link should be considered sympathetically.
There will be some people—I suspect they include one or two of my hon. Friends—who feel that we should not be linked to the continent in any circumstances. We all have constituents who have made that point. It is clear that the least disadvantageous of all the proposals is the one that has been put forward by the Government. The train tunnel can provide a link with the continent, but, what is more important, it will not destroy the ferry services. Not much has been said about that in the debate.
If any of the other schemes had been adopted, there would soon have been no ferry services between this country and the continent. That would have been against our national interest. It is all very well for the ferry companies now to say that they could be even more efficient and could cut fares in real terms by up to 30 per cent. but it has taken the threat of competition to bring them to that point.
The link will provide competition. There will be a choice. One can fly from Heathrow or Gatwick. The STOL port in London's docklands will soon be open and will provide another means of travel to the continent. Some ferries will undoubtedly still operate and we shall have trains going through the Channel link. The Government are providing a genuine choice for the travelling public.
The second group of people who object to the link is comprised of those who feel that there should be a public inquiry. A referendum has even been suggested. When I answered a radio phone-in programme the other day, I discovered that many of the people who object and want a referendum were under the impression that they had the choice of the money being spent on hospitals, schools or new roads. They were completely unaware of the fact that the capital for the scheme is to come from the private

market. If we are to have a referendum on the subject, the public should be aware of the argument and know the facts which, at the moment, I am afraid they do not.
People object because they feel that the public inquiry system is the only way in which to deal with the many concerns and reservations which have been expressed. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had the courage not to have a public inquiry. I have for many years said that it takes an interminable time to take major decisions. For example, the A 1-M1 link has rolled on for 12 years, and we are still awaiting the inspector's report. I believe that major projects should he settled by decisions of the House, questions of side roads and perhaps compulsory purchase being left to public inquiry. I believe that in that respect the Government are absolutely right.
The third group consists of those who object to the scheme put forward. When the Select Committee examined the four proposals, to my mind there was really only one solution. If one accepted that the decision had to be taken in January 1986, all the other proposals had serious defects: environmental and technical in the case of Eurobridge and Euro Route and many questions about the viability of the Channel expressway.
In the case of the two bridges, the enormous cost was not the least of the problems. In Committee I asked Sir Nigel Broackes whether he agreed that the English Channel was one of the most expensive pieces of water to cross. He agreed. I asked him if he agreed that if EuroRoute were built, it would remain one of the most expensive pieces of water to cross. He said that he thought so. Therefore, I believe that if the Government or the House had put forward a scheme which would be so expensive that no consideration was given to the travelling public, it would have been a major mistake.
In relation to the Channel expressway, I give full marks to the public relations campaign behind that proposal because it became a serious runner. However, when one investigated it, one came across many serious questions which had not been answered. For example, there is nowhere in the world where anybody has driven for 32 miles in a tunnel. The question of cost was vital. As the White Paper points out, two tunnels of over 11 metres were to be bored which would somehow be cheaper to bore than the 7 metre tunnels of the Channel Tunnel Group. There are too many unanswered questions on the Channel expressway.
The Government have come to the right and wise decision. Therefore, they deserve support in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Alfred Morris: En recognition of the many others with strong claims to speak in the debate, from both sides of the House, my intervention will be studiedly brief. As a Member of Parliament for the north-west of England, I want to underline the importance of that part of the amendment which refers to the serious employment implications of the Government's proposals for communities outside the south-east. The word "damaging" is well chosen.
The Government's keenness to forge a fixed link with France contrasts sharply with their seeming unconcern about the deep and dangerous divide which now separates


the north from the south in this country. In linking Britain to another country, they appear content to countenance even graver divisions in Britain itself.
In the debate about Stansted I put it to the House that Manchester international airport—together with other airports outside the south-east of England—had a much stronger claim than Stansted to the huge investment which the Government were contemplating there. The same argument applies in this debate. To commit billions of pounds to the south-east, already the wealthiest region, at a time when other regions are starved of investment and devasted by unemployment will deepen and still further embitter the divide between north and south. In trying to link Britain to France, the Government risk tearing north and south in this country even more grievously apart.
It will be argued that many new jobs will be created by the channel fixed link; but they will not be jobs for the north, where any increase will be small and short term. Most of the new jobs will go to the south-east, and northern France will unquestionably do much better out of the deal than northern Britain. There will be substantial new investment to improve still further the infrastructure of the south-east. It will be investment from British taxpayers as a whole, from the north-west as well as the south-east, and that excites not just disquiet but downright anger in the region I represent.
The same money cannot be spent twice and, if it is spent in the south-east, it will not be available to reduce unemployment and the deprivation it causes in the north. That is the essence of our case against these proposals. When the Minister replies, is he prepared to concede that the White Paper must, at the very least, lead to an urgent revision of the Government's regional policy to take account of the implications of its proposals on the regions outside the south-east?
In many parts of Manchester today unemployment is three times higher than the national average. We heard earlier in the debate about unemployment in Kent. In Manchester we now have localities, in what used to be the heart of industrial England, where male unemployment is over 60 per cent., and others, including parts of my constituency, where more than two thirds of the under-25s are out of work. Is it not there and elsewhere in the north that new investment should now most urgently be concentrated?
It is much to their honour that 30 Conservative Members from the south-east have said publicly that new investment should now be directed outside their region. Ministers were also told by many of their party's leading young activists, in their conference at Blackpool yesterday, that the Government's critics on the north-south divide are not confined to the Labour party.
Opposition to the White Paper is utterly all-party in the north of England. There is strong insistence that the north's claims to more investment must now be the priority of priorities and, as the Minister must know, all comparative statistics justify that insistence.
There has been totally inadequate consultation about these proposals. Even the North of England Regional Consortium of local authorities has yet to meet a Minister to discuss its views. Many other important interests have been brushed aside in the Government's haste to do the wrong thing.
I reject the White Paper and hope to be joined in the Lobby by right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House in opposing its proposals. It would be the merest hypocrisy to go on complaining about the north-south divide tomorrow if we approve these proposals tonight. Action to repair and renew the links between north and south in this country must surely be a much more urgent priority than linking south-east England to northern France.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome the White Paper because I believe that the proposals outlined and the particular choice made by the Government for the fixed link are practical, technically sound and financially viable. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) suggested that the first sentence of paragraph 2 where the Government set out their policy
to increase consumer choice and promote efficiency
meant absolutely nothing. He will not be surprised to hear that I cannot agree with him on that. However, on another matter, I was pleased to hear him—he was wearing his naval reserve tie, the ensign that I am always pleased to see—air his concern about the problems and the future of Britain's merchant fleet. On that issue, I join him.
I believe that the scheme gives the best chance for the ferries to survive, while, at the same time, it introduces the powerful stimulus of competition into what has, until now, been one of the most expensive sea crossings in the world. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) has said that more detail is needed on how that competition will be maintained in future, but tonight the Secretary of State spelt out the fact that already we have seen a drop in ferry tariffs as a result of the decision to build a fixed link. The speed of decision was welcome. It is noticeable that that rapid programme was also acceptable to the French. I do not believe that Britain can, year after year, and decade after decade, take the length of time that we have to decide major projects through the system of public inquiry. That puts us way behind the rest of Europe on this issue.
The project is historic. It is obviously vast and also exciting. It is one for which the Government should take credit and in which this country, ultimately, will be able to take pride. It is also, a measure of increased confidence in Britain and in what Britain can achieve that four competing schemes were researched, put together as a package, and submitted.
I should like to deal with three aspects arising from the fixed link decision—the development of the railway, the development of the road network, and the effects on the environment. Many hon. Members have already spoken about the railway. I agree that not for 100 years has such an opportunity for the development of freight and passenger services been opened up to our rail system. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the support that his negotiations with the French have already given British Rail, the most important being an equal partnership for the development of the through trains from London to Paris and from London to Brussels, and for the building of the locomotives and rolling stock. It is crucial to obtain the best opportunities for British industry, particularly in the midlands and the north, which many hon. Members have mentioned, particularly Opposition Members.


I also welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to an extension of British Rail's external financing limit to take full account of the opportunity that the Channel fixed link offers British Rail and the demand that it puts upon it. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I, for one, will be coming back on that issue in future because the fact is that, for many years, the French have given a higher priority to public investment in the railways that we have in Britain. In this new situation, we must rethink that issue.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree, coming from a not dissimilar constituency, that one would have greater confidence in British Rail's capacity to take advantage of this undoubted good opportunity if it had shown itself to be more capable of cutting fares to compete with other forms of transport?

Mr. Wolfson: I accept my hon. Friend's point, that British Rail will have to ensure that its fares are competitive so that it can continue to compete. However, I shall not be diverted from my point, which is this. Down the years, the French Government have been readier to subsidise their rail network in terms of capital investment in it and running costs than we have been in this country. It is important, in achieving a balance between sensible support for British Rail and unnecessary pump priming, that British Rail is not limited in the opportunity that it is given to build a competitive system with the French railways in the wake of the Channel fixed link. Let me give two examples—the success of the grande vitesse trains in France and the new improved commuter routes round Paris, which put British Rail to shame, particularly the commuter routes.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the investment being made in the SNCF in Paris puts successive British Governments, particularly this one, to shame anyway?

Mr. Wolfson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. I am merely making the point that, in the new situation, British Rail's external financing limit needs to be extended, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says he will do.
It is essential that customs and immigration procedures are done on train if the new through trains are to operate effectively, particularly from Scotland and the north of England. I appreciate that that will require a fundamental change in outlook from our officials in both those services, but I argue that that is exactly what the Channel fixed link is all about—just such a change in outlook by the nation as a whole. Of course, safeguards against smuggling, disease and illegal immigration must be built into altered systems, but it is simply not on to make no fundamental change to our control system in the face of the dramatic change in travel convenience that through rail offers. Today, many hon. Members have spoken out about the advantages that the fixed link offers, with the growth of rail traffic, to passengers and freight. Decanting passengers for a customs check on long-distance trains through Britain will be a major disincentive to train travel and will have to be changed.
Before leaving the subject of the railways, I should like to comment on the effect that the fixed link through trains might have on existing commuter services, particularly through my constituency of Sevenoaks. I welcome an

assurance that I have already had from British Rail, that it is well aware of the importance of maintaining a proper balance between maximising the opportunity for international business and achieving a proper service for captive commuters, for which, as it is well aware, it receives a subsidy from the taxpayer. I welcome its commitment to consultation with local people as the situation develops.
I should like to make particular reference to the M25 and the Dartford tunnel. It is essential that the third bore of the Dartford tunnel is built as rapidly as possible. We have a private enterprise solution to that. It is essential to move with great rapidity to get that work done. The traffic forecasts by the Department of Transport have consistently been grossly underestimated. I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State struggling manfully the other day on the radio when dealing with the problems that already exist in the south-west section of the M25. He made the point, reasonably and honestly enough, that decisions on the size of that motorway were made 12 or 15 years ago. Now that he is in the decision-making seat, will he ensure that he gets it right on the Dartford tunnel, and does so quickly?
I shall confine my remarks on the environment to the concerns of my constituents. Other hon. Members will speak and have spoken powerfully for theirs. The consultative process in Kent must be genuine. I welcome the commitments given on that matter and we shall hold my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to them. My first concern is the danger of urban sprawl eating into the green belt, especially in terms of warehousing development. The second is the increased pressure for major housing developments in west Kent and elsewhere. The third is the insidious squeeze to enlarge towns and villages on an ad hoc basis.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister believes that that development can be left to local authorities at district and county level: if they want development, they can allow it, but if they do not, they should not allow it. However, it is not good enough to leave it there, because the appeal procedure, the position taken by inspectors on those appeals in their advice to the Secretary of State and his decision bring us up against central Government policy.
I believe that an overall strategy is essential. Parts of the Opposition amendment on that issue have considerable relevance and that is something to which we should pay attention.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I spoke during the debate on 9 December and I do not intend to repeat the points that I made then. However, I made it clear that I was completely opposed to a Channel fixed link for reasons very much on the lines explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
Since our earlier debate, the choice has been made. For those of us who opposed the Channel fixed link the Government's choice is the least damaging from almost every point of view, including the regional view. Obviously, regional considerations are what I have in mind.
One must acknowledge that the scheme presents British Rail with some opportunities, but there is precious little sign of spreading those opportunities over the whole of the United Kingdom or that the Government will make the


necessary finance available, if the White Paper is any guide. In several respects, I consider the opportinities to be marginal for the railways.
It is the least damaging choice from the regional point of view, but it is the least popular among those in favour of the fixed link who have been considering a drive-through facility. That has not been chosen, and any prospect of it has been put into the dim and distant future.
In terms of pricing, everyone has said that it is important, for several reasons, including consumer choice and defence and strategic reasons, that the ferries should not be completely destroyed when the Channel tunnel goes ahead. Obviously, it is impossible to guarantee that position unless a view is taken on pricing. Paragraph 4 of the White Paper states:
the promoter would enjoy full commercial freedom to determine his commercial policy including the setting of tariffs for users of the link"—
that sounds absolute, but it is qualified,
subject to domestic and Community competition law, which contain essential safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour including abuse of a dominant market position.
What does that mean? We have had no explanation from the Minister. It is gobbledegook. I defy anyone to explain rationally or sensibly what it means. There has been much talk of predatory pricing, but who are the predators and who are the prey? No one has explained that to us. According to paragraph 21 CTG-FM
envisage that their tariffs will be around 10 per cent. less, in real terms, than today's level of ferry fares.
That is the basis on which it is going ahead, yet the Minister told us this evening that the existing ferry operators are already proposing to reduce fares by 30 percent. in real terms. Who are the predators? From where does the anti-competitive behaviour that is mentioned in paragraph 4 come? What is the dominant market position? Will it belong to the ferry operators or to the tunnel operator?
It is nonsense to believe that it will be possible, except in the most fortuitious circumstances, to allow ordinary competitive forces to operate pricing across the Channel. If the Government are serious about maintaining ferry services, there must be price regulation in some form.
We have not heard from the Minister any sensible explanation of the White Paper, which in other respects is a completely inadequate document.
We have heard the argument about jobs during the construction of the tunnel. With unemployment in Britain at the present time, no one should disparage additional employment in any part of the country. However, the claims made were entirely exaggerated. The original summary of the project put forward by the CTG stated that
Total employment created during construction will exceed 40,000 in the two countries.
That suggests that 40,000 people from the two countries would be employed on the tunnel, but from the White Paper we get a different interpretation of what 40,000 means. It turns out to be 40,000 man years spread over six years in the United Kingdom. That is an entirely different proposition from 40,000 people being employed. The distribution of the jobs involved realises our worst fears, especially in Scotland and the North.
We are told that almost half the United Kingdom jobs will be in Kent, which is not one of the most

underdeveloped areas in the country. There will be good opportunities in the east and west Midlands. We are lamely told at the end of paragraph 39 that
there are firms in Scotland and the North-East able to supply construction materials.
All sorts of extravagant claims were made in the early stages that the jobs would go to the north of England and to Scotland. That is absurd and many of us made that point in the debate on 9 December. The Government's White Paper has confirmed it.
It has been said that work will go to British Rail workshops. Some of us are seeing the Minister of State, Department of Transport tomorrow about the obliteration of the British Rail workshop at Springburn. There are no opportunities for additional work there. If the Minister tells us tomorrow that, in view of the White Paper, Springburn will be kept going at a sensible level, I shall be delighted, but I do not believe that we will receive that answer.
The short-term aspect of jobs during the construction period is important, but the longer-term aspect worries the regions. The long-term advantage will go to the south-east of England. Paragraph 41 explains the difficulties about the reduction in employment on the ferry services on the assumption that the ferry services survive, but we are not allowed to know the basis of that assumption. The Government say that they will not publish their economic assessment, but on the basis of the Government's assumptions there will be a loss of employment on the ferry services but they hope that that will be made up as the years go by. They also mention generating new jobs in ancillary industry, again in the south-east.
The regional considerations are not dealt with, despite the fact that they were a major element in the debate on 9 December. The Government have no regional policy and there is no indication in the White Paper of what effect the fixed link will have on the regions of the United Kingdom.
In the long term, the economic development, the jobs and so on will come to the south-east. It would be impossible to prevent that from happening, even if we had a Government who were determined to try. It is futile to argue that jobs will be evenly spread throughout the United Kingdom.
Even if we were providing additional road and rail links—and the White Paper sets out only developments connected directly with the south-east—the main advantage would still come to the south-east. The argument that the advantages will be spread throughout the United Kingdom recalls the view of those who said that, if there were good links between Aberdeen and the rest of the United Kingdom, North sea oil jobs would be spread throughout the country. Of course, it did not happen like that. I am glad that, for good geographical and physical reasons, the Aberdeen area had the main benefit from North sea oil development. No Government could have prevented that from happening, even if they had wished to do so.
The argument that if a proper road network were developed between Aberdeen and Devon and Cornwall there would be as many jobs going to the west country as there would be in Aberdeen was a manifest absurdity, as is the claim that the Channel tunnel development will result in job opportunities being spread throughout the United Kingdom. Those opportunities will arise in the most overcrowded area—

Dr. John Marek: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Millan: I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not give way; I promised to speak briefly.
The economic advantages of the project will come overwhelmingly to the south-east of England, which is precisely the part of the country where we should not be spending money to provide such opportunities when there is devastating unemployment in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "What money?"] Any sort of money, whether private or public.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Rail is to build or make extensions to six platforms at Waterloo station and to viaducts and other systems? That is happening at just one station. Will not that be paid for with public money?

Mr. Millan: Of course it will be public money. I dealt in my speech on 9 December with the whole question of public and private money and I have no intention of going over that argument.
The concentration of expenditure, whether of public or private money, and the ultimate concentration of activity will be in the south-east of England. That is incontrovertible and it will be against the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe said, that will emphasise the north-south divide.
Stories have appeared in the Scottish newspapers over the past few days—I presume that they are valid—that the Secretary of State for Scotland is engaged in a tremendous battle to prevent the Treasury from clawing back £6 million from the Scottish Development Agency. A great political battle is going on within the Government about a comparative trivial sum for development in Scotland, yet we are being asked to approve a White Paper which sets out the expenditure of billions of pounds of public and private money for the benefit of one of the richest areas in the United Kingdom. Those of us who represent Scotland are absolutely against the project, and we shall carry our opposition to the limit.

Mr. David Couch: As befits a former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) made a Scottish speech and argued strongly, as he is entitled to do, for more industry and activity in Scotland.
I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for adopting that approach. He said the same things on 9 December, and I followed him on that occasion, too. I was somewhat parochial then, and I shall be somewhat parochial today, because I wish to speak about the problems of what the right hon. Gentleman called the rich area of the south-east of England.
We in Kent are relatively rich and we have a lower rate of unemployment than the national average, but I remind the House that we are debating a White Paper which is in two parts. We are asked to approve the Government's choice from the four options, and we have to consider the consequences of approving a fixed link. The consequences that worry me most are the environmental consequences in Kent.
Paragraph 28 of annex B to the White Paper says:
Local opinion in Kent generally has been against a link.

I would describe opinion in east Kent in rather stronger terms. I believe in the link and have said so in the House and on many occasions over many years. I am not popular in my constituency for having taken the national view.
Many of my constituents believe that I have let them down by taking a national, not a parochial, view. Those of us who support the link may be wrong, but I believe that we are right. However, I wish to outline the view of local people who will be directly affected by this major engineering event.
I have received many letters against the project and quite a few in favour of it. A distinguished engineer, who is a member of the Royal Society and was a promoter of the Channel bridge, suggested that the best solution for me would have been a bridge across the Channel and a tunnel under Kent. Perhaps that would have made life easier for me, but it is too late to ask for that now.
On Wednesday I shall be welcoming the Prime Minister and the President of France when they come to my constituency to sign the treaty. Every Prime Minister whom I have served under has been to my constituency—and even the Pope has been there. I think that it is appropriate that the treaty should be signed in a part of the county where there is grave anxiety about the project and dissension about whether the link should be provided. The Prime Minister was brave to choose to sign the treaty in the county where there are many critics.
Many people are against the link, for many reasons. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that many people are against the link for its own sake: we should have no link with the continent; let us keep Britain an island with a 22-mile moat between us and our enemies. That is what our people have been taught in school for the past 200 to 300 years—and in three wars during the past 200 years, they have been proved right.
I have tried to tell people that today the nations of Europe are not our enemies, but our allies and partners. Perhaps those thoughts of Russians with snow on their boots—memories of the first world war—are still in people's minds. I simply remind them that military historians often say that we must not try to fight the next war on the lessons of the past, but rather to think ahead.
Tonight I wish to speak only about the environmental consequences for Kent. The tunnel will be a magnet for traffic, and many people say that Kent already has too much traffic. The price that Kent will pay will be very high. I agree with those who fear the effect on the environment. There is a real danger that damage will be done to a beautiful part of England. Indeed, the While Paper states that many times, as does the environmental appraisal by the land use consultants.
The challenge to the Government and the Channel Tunnel Group is that they must limit damage to the environment. I remind the Government that we are debating not only the choice of link, but their response to the challenge to safeguard the environment in Kent. Paragraph 15 of the White Paper refers to the choice that
has an environmental impact that can be contained and limited.
In paragraph 32, it states that
the environmental damage will be kept to a minimum.
Therefore, the White Paper acknowledges in those and many other paragraphs that there will be environmental damage.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Government recognised that there would be problems in


Kent, and that they were concerned about that. Paragraph 45 of the White Paper states that the Government would now be
concentrating upon making the chosen scheme as acceptable as possible.".
From now on, there must be good public relations where there has been none before. Indeed, there must be much more than good public relations—there must be consultation. I am glad that we have been promised a consultation committee.
The project will need explanation because there has been little to date. It will also need participation. The Government should not be afraid of that. Let them not only listen to the people of Kent, but invite them to have a say in the final decisions about the environment. The Government must clearly explain the meaning of a hybrid Bill and how it works. Such a Bill must be sold to the public.
There is an understandable clamour for a public inquiry. Without one, people will want to know the meaning of the hybrid Bill. It may be that they will have a better hearing with a hybrid Bill. The Government must explain what such a Bill does and how it works.
The Government must take positive steps to safeguard the environment. I do not simply mean engineering, building, road works and rail investment. Let us hear about limiting the intrusion of those developments into the environment. Let us hear about landscaping—artificial hills that can screen unsightly engineering and industrial developments. That has already happened in other parts of the country. For example, at Torness in Scotland an artificial hill now screens a nuclear power station. The sight of a nuclear power station on the way to Edinburgh is hardly attractive. The Government should tell the public how they intend to reduce the adverse effects of this great tunnel development.
I counsel not only the Government, but the Channel Tunnel Group, because in this private sector activity that group has a great responsibility to show that it is concerned about protecting the environment. It should strive for a new image—not only as an engineering company, but, in this modern age, as a company concerned about the public and about the impact on the environment.
I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said about roads. The M20 is to be a three-lane dual carriage motorway connecting with the M25. We daily read about the crowded three lanes of the M25. Would it not be better to build the route to Europe as a four-lane motorway so that we will not have to install the fourth lane in 10 years?
As mentioned in the environmental appraisal, there has to be traffic direction. It will be better to funnel the traffic to the Channel tunnel on the M20, when it is properly built, than for people to seek the best way they can to avoid the crowded M20, as I think it will become, and to use what the environmental appraisal describes as the "rat runs" of minor roads. That would create danger and havoc across Kent.
I am making a Kentish parochial speech. The people of Kent are lucky to live in one of the most beautiful corners of England. Dover and Kent have always been the gateway to the continent. We should not blame the people of Kent for standing up and trying to preserve their heritage. The Government must remember that, because it is important.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I certainly hope that when the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) meets the President of France in a few days time he will be more diplomatic about the nature of Socialism than the Secretary of State for Transport in his concluding remarks.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to downgrade the policies of the Left in relation to the public sector, but it is interesting to consider what we have learned tonight from the debate. The French Socialist Government and their publicly owned railway system was the first to offer lower fares and put a specific mark on how much lower they would be. French trains on the link will travel faster than ours—160 miles per hour rather than 100 miles per hour—which is of significance in the length of time for crossing the Channel. There is freer information from the French Government.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) told us that the French Socialist Government have published far more information on this issue and its direct and indirect effects than the British Government have. That was a point made by Conservative Members. The French Government's plans were prepared earlier and were more publicised than the Government's. The French Government have also offered something which is favoured by our Government, wider choice. There is a choice once one has crossed the Channel about where one can go. The striking thing about the French proposals is that one could take the train from Britain either to Paris or Brussels.
That is relevant in relation to the dispersal argument—the dispersal of the traffic after it has come through the chunnel. It is relevant to my constituents since the outlet terminus, the sole outlet terminus scheduled by the Government, for all the rail fixed link traffic is Waterloo. The dispersal argument is a very strong one. If we are to make effective use of this link we need to be able to bypass London, via Euston to the north-east, or via the new Snow hill tunnel when it is completed. For that traffic which has its destination in London there should have been serious consideration in the White Paper—there is no reference to the issue—of the night sleeper traffic going to White City or Olympia, for freight going to the docklands, and for passengers going to either Waterloo or Victoria. It will be possible to take a train for Paris or Brussels. Similarly it should be possible—I can see even now the indicator board flashing at the Gare du Nord—for one to learn that the next train will go either to Victoria or to Waterloo, or that it will go from Kings Cross through the new Snow hill tunnel to Birmingham, Durham and then Newcastle or from Kings Cross to Birmingham, Crewe and Glasgow.
If there is not this dispersal of traffic, and if the international rail traffic—as anticipated in a throwaway sentence in the White Paper—will outlet only at Waterloo, the commercial viability of the project, on which the Government pride themselves, will be profoundly qualified. The real advantage of rail over air is time and convenience. We all know from experience of the inconvenience of commuting to Paris or Brussels. We have to take a train, the tube or the car to Heathrow, where we have to wait before taking the aeroplane, and, on arrival, we have to take more transport to our final destination. A minimum of three legs is necessary in a journey from central London to central Paris.


We have heard much about rail versus sea, but if there is a real commercial advantage in rail versus air it will be as a result of being able to rest or work on a train without interruption, and to get off the train at the other end and leave the station immediately. But that is not what is proposed. What I have said about Waterloo are not local issues concerning the use of one station, but issues that concern the viability of the project.
What is the sense of taking three and a quarter hours on the train and then having to go through Customs as at an airport? That would profoundly undermine the attraction of the scheme. There are proposals, which I have here, for six new rail platforms and their extensions at Waterloo and for an entire new international terminal. It will be a double-decker arrangement over the concourse. However, it does not make sense. Its aesthetic attractiveness is one issue. but we must consider whether it will be any use to the millions of consumers, including those who go to the City via Waterloo, who use the station as a commuter station. They will find that part of the station is allocated exclusively to international trains—that part closest to the exit to Shell house, the City and the Bank link.
There will be congestion because passenger trains from Paris will arrive in the early morning and in the late evening. The Minister is indicating by facial expression—perhaps it is something else—that he is not sure. I am not sure of him because I have got no information on these matters from him, although I tabled a written parliamentary question. All of the signs are that the overnight sleeper link will arrive in the morning, and thus increase congestion. Congestion is of some relevance to the House. This is not an entirely facetious argument. Those who get on the train at Paris at the end of a normal working day will arrive in London at about 9.30 pm. Perhaps by the time that passengers have got out of the station and into other traffic, assuming that they do not have to go through Customs, as Customs formalities could be completed on the train, it will be 9.50 pm. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that the times will be different. Nevertheless, if the project is a success and there are many trains arriving in London in the late evening, there will be a problem.
Many hon. Members enjoy telling me that they are my constituents, and that they live in the Division Bell area. If the trains arrive at about 9.45 pm. the Division Bell area and property values in it might shrink. There are only two bridges for road traffic from Waterloo. Anybody who has gone across Waterloo bridge from Waterloo station knows that there is one underpass going north, but that to go to the west end down the Strand is a positive nightmare.
In practice, traffic leaving Waterloo turns left, goes around the traffic island next to County hall and comes over Westminster bridge. That is not an insignificant factor if we are to have road traffic links and bus services. The Minister has said nothing about buses. Will private contractors be able to pick up traffic at Waterloo? Such considerations must be examined.
Many of my constituents and I believe that those matters should be considered by a tried and tested means—a public inquiry. I have great sympathy for hon. Members with constituency interests, such as the hon. Member for Thanet, North and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who have been steamrolled by the Government to agree the decision in principle.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Waterloo station was built through the private hybrid Bill procedure?

Mr. Holland: The Secretary of State must do better than that. Is he aware that at: the great event to take place in four days' time the President of France and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will sign an agreement for traffic and French tourists to outlet exclusively at a station in London called Waterloo? What a victory for the entente cordiale. For the sake of common sense, give them the choice of going either to Victoria or Waterloo. But there are more important points to be made than on hybrid Bills.
The Government have not undertaken to set up a public inquiry. Although hon. Members who represent Kent have been steamrolled to get the principle of a Channel link passed so that construction work can start, there is plenty of time for proper public inquiry procedures to be undertaken into where traffic should outlet in London and elsewhere.
Environmental factors should also be considered. I have received extensive submissions from constituents that the local area could not sustain the traffic or take the strain. I hope to speak on Second Reading to take those points further.

Sir John Osborn: New capital projects, including the Channel tunnel, are surely what the construction and engineering industries, the north, and the Confederation of British Industry have been asking for to provide employment. Listening to the debate, it is clear that there is some truth in the observation that whenever a Government make a decision, the British people are good at providing every reason why its implementation is, at best, difficult, and, at worst, impossible. I have even received a letter from Sealink stressing the opinion poll view that once the road link had been abandoned, the public turned against the concept of a Channel tunnel at all.
I welcome the White Paper, and particularly the Government's choice. As joint chairman of the all-party Channel tunnel group, certainly at the December exhibition and conference at Lille, I have supported the fixed link, or ligne fixe. Despite the speeches of the right hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I am convinced that the decision is good for Britain as a whole. It is, or could be, good for our industry, the midlands and the north. It is a challenge and an opportunity that I hope the country will grasp.
My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent, including my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Couch), have given contradictory views about whether the link will take jobs from the area, especially from Dover and Folkestone, or bring new industries to its rural areas, ruining the environment and despoiling the countryside which, as a northerner, I have come to know and appreciate. From what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I am convinced that the decision need not despoil Kent, or bring unwanted industries into the towns, alongside the main roads, the railway lines and motorways between the centre of Britain and the coast of Kent. As a northerner, I see no reason why Kent need have any more new industries than it wants. I want to see those industries come to the midlands and the north, and I want political


and industrial leaders to take this opportunity to make sure that that happens. After all, there will be new industries stemming from creation of the tunnel, but already it is a fact that 60 per cent. of our exports go to the Community anyhow.
The British Rail-SNCF link could provide the opportunity for long-distance freight—I admit that that may be container traffic—to travel from Manchester to Milan on a regular basis. The EEC freight network—which is somewhat larger than ours because of the longer distances involved—could undoubtedly bring the midlands and northern industries nearer to their customers and markets. That will be a vital step forward, and it is an opportunity which must be welcomed and grasped.
During the debate in December 1985 the Euroroute and expressway were considered to have advantages. In reply to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), I said that I supported the solution put forward by the Channel Tunnel Group because that would do least harm to the Channel ports and I hoped that 50 per cent. of cross-Channel traffic would still be carried by sea. It would be least costly, take a lower volume of traffic to provide a return and give a faster passage.
In the debate inspired by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the dangers of the expressway drive-through, I supported the concept of drive-through but was alarmed about safety, ventilation and the technology to achieve that. On the other hand, if the expressway could modify its original proposal from two to four tunnels, it occurred to me that there was no reason why the CTG should not start with rail and, if traffic demand increased to justify it, supplement the original two rail tunnels with an additional road tunnel. I believe it is better to start with known technology and to "walk before you run". A drive-through could be provided later.
Subsequently I was in favour of the drive-through being limited to cars, not heavy road vehicles. A 50-kilometre stretch of road does not strike me as being a good place for a mixture of heavy road vehicles and cars. The larger tunnel, having three lanes and perhaps a reserve or certainly laybys for heavy vehicles as well as cars, could be too wide for the narrow width of chalk for the tunnelling operation. Paragraph 16 of the White Paper deals with that. In the long term, I favour a drive-through for cars only. I hope that heavy vehicles will continue to use the shuttle or the ferries. That decision can be made when the first step has been taken.
As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall withdraw my other comments, except to stress one final point. The Sheffield chamber of commerce has asked me to explain what orders are likely to come to the north of England over the next few years. The engineering requirements amount to £700 million. The need for pre-cast linings means that £130 million will go to the midlands and north of England. Cast-iron tunnel equipment will mean £30 million to the midlands and north-east England. Rolling stock would bring £120 million to the midlands and the north-west and electric locomotives would bring another £40 million. There are orders for the north in the short term, and the north and midlands could be brought nearer to their customers by a railway network which is proving itself elsewhere in Europe. I therefore welcome the decision taken by my right hon. Friend.

Dr. John Marek: I also welcome the Government's decision and regard the Channel tunnel as potentially the biggest boost for railways in Britain this century, following decades of neglect.
British Rail predicts that cross-Channel passenger traffic will jump from the present figure of 3 million a year to 9 million in the first year of the tunnel's operation as a result of self-generated traffic and as the reliability and price competitiveness of rail services divert passengers from air travel. These figures are based on conventional train speeds. By the year 2003, when new high-speed rail services will be open to Brussels and Paris, passenger traffic is expected to rise to an annual total of 11 million.
The Channel tunnel also gives British Rail enormous new potential in the international freight market. At present, international freight traffic represents only 2 per cent. of British Rail's freight business by comparison with 22 per cent. on German railways and 21 per cent. on French railways. Present cross-Channel carryings of freight are only about 2 million tonnes. British Rail estimates that 6 million tonnes of cross-Channel freight will be rail-borne at the end of the first year of operation at the end of 1993, rising to 7 million tonnes by the year 2003.
There is no doubt about these projected increases in rail passenger and freight carryings. The result will be faster and more frequent services to European destinations and this will appeal to the travelling public and British industry alike. The business man in Manchester will be able to load his freight on to wagons in Manchester and they can be offloaded at Duisberg, for example, without any difficulties stemming from crossing the Channel.
More services, the new build for freight and passenger trains, new terminals and additional maintenance requirements will mean more jobs in the railway industry. The Government must do two things to enable British Rail to seize this opportunity. First, they must ensure that the appropriate levels of capital investment are available to British Rail to carry out the necessary new build of rolling stock and infrastructure development. At the very least, there must be no constraints on British Rail's external financing limits for this work. The capital investment must be made in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the Government must ensure that agreements are reached as speedily as possible with the Home Office and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to permit on train Customs and immigration facilities. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) replies he will assure us that he will do his best to ensure that those who are shadow Home Office Ministers will make certain that this is done if the Government cannot give us an assurance tonight.
What will the benefits be for employment? Combined British Rail and Channel Tunnel Group expenditure in the United Kingdom on equipment, materials and labour in the construction phase of the tunnel will be over £1 billion. This is an enormous opportunity for British industry. As the expenditure will be primarily on engineering and construction works, the traditional industrial regions can benefit the most. There is no reason to believe that the orders will be placed to any large extent outside the United Kingdom. In practice, British Rail will buy British, unless tenders are improbably low from abroad. The Government


must help British industry, and an assurance from the Minister of State on this score when he replies would be extremely welcome.
We want none of the dumping which has so often led British manufacturers to lose out on rail export contracts. For the CTG contracts, EEC competitive tendering rules will apply. Again, there is no reason to believe that British industry will be unable to compete effectively.
The CTG has maintained consistently that its expenditure in the construction phase will generate about 40,000 man years of direct employment in the United Kingdom. If we add to that figure the indirect employment that will be generated, there will perhaps be about 70,000 man years of employment. In addition, we shall have British Rail investment, which will provide many jobs and opportunities, mainly outside the south-east. It is clear that in the construction phase there are enormous benefits available to the north of England, Scotland and Wales, with Government help and if the Government wish.
I must disagree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) about a parallel with Aberdeen and the oil industry. Aberdeen benefited from the oil industry, but so did the rest of the country when the oil came aboard. Unfortunately. the Governments economic mismanagement meant that all the oil revenue was spent on paying unemployment benefit, but that is another matter. If we have a Channel tunnel, it will benefit the south-east and the rest of the country.
If the economy were buoyant, we would not be talking in these terms. Unfortunately, the economy is not buoyant and we have problems and apprehensions about jobs. If the Government will it, we can benefit as a united country from the Channel tunnel project. I hope that it goes ahead without any impediment.

Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted to have the opportunity briefly to express my welcome for the scheme for the Channel tunnel. I am disappointed that the rail-only option has been taken, especially in view of the excitement and attractions of the Channel expressway, which was very much a latecomer to the scheme as a whole. If the lead time between the tender date and the date for a decision was too short to enable the Channel expressway to be assessed properly, the date for decision should have been extended. We may have been forced into this historic decision in something of a hurry to satisfy the electoral needs of the French Government.
There is no incentive for CTG ever to build the road link, and if every possible contender finds it difficult, because it has to wait to the year 2020, to put in the road scheme, that will not happen within the foreseeable future. It will be a bonus to Kent, and my constituency in the Medway towns, which has an unemployment rate of 17 per cent. I have sympathy for those hon. Members from the north and from Scotland who say that the scheme will siphon the employment from elsewhere down into Kent, but the Medway towns and other industrial parts of Kent are prepared and able to exploit this potential, which will be of advantage.
The M2 will be equally as important as the M20 as a route to the tunnel. The M2 will become so busy that it will cease to be the local bypass for the Medway towns and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)

suggested, will make it imperative that a northern relief road for the Medway towns and a third crossing over the Medway be built soon.

Mr. Peter Snape: Although this has been a truncated debate, it has illustrated not only the depth of the cross-party support for the scheme but the depth of the cross-party opposition to it. I shall have some difficulty in reconciling all the views that have been expressed in the debate, but I think that I can take a majority of the House with me fairly early on when I refer to the contribution of the Secretary of State. If anybody was careful not to say anything about the consequences of the Channel link, it was the Secretary of State. He had his usual go at the Labour party and used the example of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is sponsored by the National Union of Seamen. We have never made any secret about the fact that we have disagreed over the desirability of such a link.
The Secretary of State had a go at the Liberal party arid saw contradictions there. I cannot answer for it, and none of its members is present. I thought that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) set out as honestly as he could what he felt, but who knows about the rest of the Liberal party—then again, who cares?
When the Secretary of State makes such attacks, he overlooks a major point about which we had to tick him off at Question Time only last week. We all know, because he has said so on several occasions, that the right hon. Gentleman opposes all schemes for a Channel tunnel link. He shakes his head, but for years he has opposed all such links. The Prime Minister took him to Lille the other week:, and then sent him home like the old-fashioned post office telegram boy to tell the House of Commons what she had decided. The right hon. Gentleman had to do his duty. He arrived without having had his lunch and delivered the, for him, unwelcome message that the Channel Tunnel Group scheme had been chosen and it was up to him, as the Secretary of State, to find enough excuses to justify the choice and the public resources to cater for the demand that such a choice would make on British Rail.
The Secretary of State had some sport—I make no complaint about that—with the Opposition's amendment. I concede that it is fairly detailed, but we feel, or at least those of us who have the slightest glimmer of hope on the Channel link feel, that the detailed nature of our amendment amply illustrates the fears expressed from both sides of the House about the likely economic consequences of a Channel tunnel link and its impact not only on the south-east but on all other regions.
I said earlier that it lies beyond my abilities as an orator., poor though they may be, to convince right hon. and hon. Members who are completely against the fixed link. My prospects of convincing my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) are about equal to the prospects of Berwick Rangers winning the Scottish cup. He said that the scheme will have an impact upon the economic imbalance between the south-east of England and the rest of the United Kingdom, but acceptance of the Channel Tunnel Group scheme or any other scheme is irrelevant to the economic imbalance. Those who are opposed to the fixed link have an obligation to tell the House how the economic imbalance will be improved


without the scheme. I sympathise with and understand the view that a better use could be found for the £1 billion that is to be put into this scheme.
I served upon the Standing Committee that considered the last Channel tunnel Bill.

Mr. Boyes: That was in 1926.

Mr. Snape: No, it was not in 1926. My hon. Friend must get it right. It was in 1975.
The objection of many of my hon. Friends then was that better use could be made of public money than by spending it upon a Channel tunnel. I did not agree at that time with my hon. Friends and I do not agree with them now, but I understand their point of view. However, the House is aware that this fixed link will not involve public money. Therefore, my hon. Friends presumably wish the £1 billion of private sector capital to be spent in other directions. However, that choice is not open to us. We have no control over the expenditure of private sector capital. I fear that if it were not to be spent upon the fixed link, it would not be spent upon the deprived regions of the United Kingdom.
We have to decide, therefore, whether the scheme that has been chosen by the Prime Minister can remotely be defended. The Government have missed an opportunity. They should have set out the economic advantages of the scheme for the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) let the cat out of the bag when he referred to the amount of information that is available to electors on the other side of the Channel. The French Government have set out in detail the impact of the scheme on the French economy, particularly upon that part of France which most closely abuts the entrance and the exit to the new Channel link. Why have our Government not done the same? This Government do not believe in the kind of planning that the French Government have long since embraced.
The Secretary of State had the cheek to tell us that this will be a wonderful, capitalist tunnel. It was a somewhat exotic phrase, even for him. Presumably the tunnel changes halfway under the Channel and becomes a wonderful Socialist tunnel, although I do not suppose the fact that President Mitterrand is a Socialist has ever entered his head.
The right hon. Gentleman referred earlier to what he called the inherent conservatism of the British people which he said was already being shown by the fact that they are writing letters objecting to the proposals. Again, he rather condemns himself from his own lips, because if there were a typical Conservative it would be the right hon. Gentleman. It is not his fault that he is the second son of Viscount Ridley and was educated at Eton and Balliol, but there are comparatively few Left-wing Socialists with such a background.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Snape: I have not finished yet. I am not in a position to know about the right hon. Gentleman's friends, but I have not met too many Left-wing Socialists who are so educated, so if ever there were a typical Conservative it is the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ridley: I only want to remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was my fag at Eton.

Mr. Snape: All I can say is that it must have been that experience that drove my hon. Friend into the Campaign Group. I cannot think of a better reason.
The fact that our amendment is couched in the way that it is is also due to the fact that the Government have transparently failed to show how the so-called economic benefits can be fairly spread throughout the country. Indeed, according to the White Paper, there is no compulsion, there is not even an attempt at persuasion, to ensure that the large amount of capital expenditure to which the Channel Tunnel Group is committed will be spent within the United Kingdom. Yet a great deal of capital expenditure could, should and, one would hope, will be spent within the United Kingdom. I hope that when he replies the Minister will give us some definite assurances that that will happen. After all, the Channel Tunnel Group is talking about an expenditure of about £300 million on rolling stock.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Govan and others have talked about the plight of British Rail Engineering Limited and my right hon. Friend specifically referred to the future of Springburn. Nothing in the White Paper or the Government's proposals gives a shred of assurance for Springburn. They do nothing for the future of Swindon or Doncaster. The British Rail engineering workshops are being divided before privatisation and it is the Government's intention, with typical cynicism, to dispose of many employees of British Rail Engineering Limited before the orders for the work on this scheme are laid.
We are seeing the Government's usual cynicism. The redundancy payments for those who work in British Rail Engineering Limited will be picked up by the public sector. The taxpayer will be responsible for paying off skilled craftsmen throughout the country. Yet we know from the details that can be gleaned from the White Paper that the hundreds of millions of pounds worth of orders which will result from the Channel Tunnel Group scheme will go to a privatised British Rail Engineering Limited and those orders will benefit the private sector while the public sector will be left to pick up the bill. That is the reason for the cynicism that is being expressed by Labour Members. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will say something about the future of those thousands of men and women within British Rail Engineering Limited who, regardless of the scheme, are facing redundancy.
The aspects on which the Government have failed to reassure any of us extend to substantial orders for BR. Where in the White Paper are there any details of the places from which rolling stock orders will emerge? There is talk about the Government's pricing policy and there are well-meaning hints about potential, but a Government who are prepared to tolerate the enormous decline in manufacturing industry that this Government have positively encouraged since 1979 are surely not to be trusted without specific details on BR's ordering policies.
Who is to build the 20 high-speed trains, the 400 freightliner wagons and the extra freight locomotives, wagons and coaches and who is to provide the electrics for the electrification schemes and the steel needed to meet the commitment for the large marshalling yard at Ashford? Who will construct—I refer to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland)—the new international terminal at Waterloo? What guarantee do we have that the scheme will benefit British railways and engineering nationwide? We seek reassurance.


Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the benefits to British Rail freight that link will bring about. Will the Minister of State give assurances on the extension of section 8 grants?

The Minister of State, Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Just give me the time.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman was the first to throw away the time available. He wants to say as little as possible. Whatever he says, it will probably be more than the Secretary of State, but I do not know whether he will say it as elegantly as his colleague. Is there to be an extension of section 8 grants to enable British Rail freight to take advantage of the long-haul and through freight trains that the CTG scheme should in all conscience bring?
In some ways, the debate has crossed party lines. One does not often hear encouragement such as we heard from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) in demanding much greater investment in BR. We hope that he will join us in two weeks at Transport Question Time when he can put these matters to the Secretary of State. He can bring his colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who spoke of the failure of BR management to reduce fares and therefore fill trains. It is difficult—I shall say this slowly because I can say it only once and I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent will understand me—to reduce fares and fill trains when faced with a Government who have been anxious for years to reduce the amount of money available to BR, especially under a Secretary of State who took £200 million out of BR's investment base. I hope that Conservative Members will turn up a little more often at Transport Question Time to put these points fairly and squarely.
The Opposition have tabled their amendment because they want assurances. We need better assurances on the future of British manufacturing industry, especially from the Secretary of State. I am not knocking the Minister of State, but I know that, if the assurances are not written down on his papers, we shall not get them. If we do not get assurances, I urge my colleagues to go into the Lobby to support the Opposition's amendment.

The Minister of State, Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): We have had a valuable debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have clearly expressed their views. A number of hon. Members, including my colleagues from south and east Kent, have expressed their anxieties and asked me questions. I shall seek to reply to those questions before turning to the negative and carping Opposition amendment which signally failed to rise to the occasion and in good measure contradicted what was said by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said that a Labour Government would continue this project.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) clearly misunderstood the purpose and method of operation of the consultative committee, which I shall chair, which will meet in Kent with local authorities and the Channel Tunnel Group. It is intended to seek ways to minimise the damage caused locally by the construction and to maximise the benefits by agreement between the promoters and the public authorities.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought, that those who make representations to the

committee will not affect their ability to be petitioners against the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the resources available to British Rail. I assure him that we plan to give British Rail an EFL sufficient to cover its commercially viable investment, which is what is involved in this project.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham): On the subject of rail investments, will my hon. Friend say if and when British Rail will have the resources necessary to widen the loading gauge so that through container traffic from all parts of the United Kingdom will be able to use the tunnel? That is crucial to the rail freight argument.

Mr. Mitchell: I assure my hon. Friend that that is something which British Rail is planning.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) asked whether the committee would meet in Kent other than in Maidstone. I assure him that we intend to move around the county. He mentioned the problem of Shakespeare cliff. I can again assure him that that is a matter that we will consider carefully in committee and with the promoters. He also asked about jobs. I shall deal with that point separately.
My right hon. and learned Friend asked for three assurances. The first was about predatory pricing. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission can deal with that point under the Fair Trading Act 1973. He also asked how quickly the Office of Fair Trading would deal with a problem. It can react quickly and carry out an assessment of a problem if one arises.
The right hon. Member for Deptford, Lewisham (Mr. Silkin) asked about spoil dumping at sea and whether it would kill the spawning fish in the English Channel. That matter will be covered by the work of my consultation committee. In no circumstances would we allow the spawning grounds to be damaged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) asked about the trunking of Thanet Way. We are consulting Kent county council about that matter, and I shall see that the consultative committee covers that point. He mentioned, as did other hon. Members, a document produced by the French Government about their intended investment in the Pas de Calais. He asked whether we could have a similar document in the United Kingdom. We have that in the White Paper, the statements that have been made in the House, the questions that have been answered and the speeches that have been made in the debates. Drawing all those matters together in one document might be helpful to hon. Members. I will consider that point carefully.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) asked about Customs, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). I agree that it is desirable that Customs and Excise formalities should if possible be carried out on the trains. We are discussing with the Customs and Excise what is needed to satisfy its requirements.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall and other hon. Members asked about the hybrid Bill procedure. I shall not go over the arguments about that again. The House has already well debated them. However, I have today written to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who has been in his place throughout the debate, and who is assiduous in representing his constituents' views. I have set out in full


the procedure which applies to a hybrid Bill and informed him of the opportunities for consultation and objection available to those of his constituents who wish to take advantage of them. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library. I intend, in addition, to produce a layman's guide in the form of a simple leaflet so that his constituents and others who are affected may be aware of what it involves
A civil engineering project of this size, as with any other major project, is bound to have an effect on the environment. There will be damaging local effects and wider national benefits. As the House is aware, I will chair in Kent a committee consisting of local authorities, the Department of the Environment and the promoters. We shall be looking at ways of carrying the project through with a minimum of practical damage to the environment. I recognise that that has particular and unique effects on Shepway and it is my intention to seek an invitation as soon as possible to meet the council to discuss the effects.
However, it is not only in Shepway that there will be environmental effects. For years, environmental groups have been pressing for more goods to go by rail. Now those groups have got what they want because the Channel tunnel will provide a rail link between the United Kingdom rail network and the whole of the continental rail network. It will provide the opportunity for substantially more goods to go by rail than in the past. Susan Hoyle, the director of Transport 2000, said that the CTG scheme offers the best opportunity since the war for a major renaissance by British Rail. The House knows that the longer the distance, the better prospects British Rail has of competing successfully. We should certainly see an environmental benefit from freight going by rail rather than road.
I have been questioned on jobs. If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) had left me more time, I could have dealt more effectively with that subject. For the next six years there will be more jobs on the ferries because trade is growing, more jobs in the Kent area because of the construction of the tunnel, more jobs in other parts of the country because they will have orders for engineering works, for British Rail work and for the merry-go-round to go on the train. All of that is a net benefit.
When the tunnel opens, there will be a short-term loss of about 1,600 jobs in Dover, but after that there will be a resumption of growth both in jobs and traffic on the ferries, which will mean that after 10 years there will be about 2,000 more jobs than at present. There will be huge opportunities for other parts of the country to compete more successfully because we will be able to get our goods more cheaply, efficiently and reliably into our export markets on the continent.
I turn to the Opposition amendment, and I do so with relish. It contains six carping criticisms. It complains that the Government have not published the full terms of the treaty and protocols. I see the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East nodding. The Opposition must know that it is not normal to do so in advance of signature of a treaty. No Governments do that and the previous Labour Government did not do it. There is no reason why we should depart from the established practice in that respect.
The amendment also refers to there being no Government commitment to finance British Rail. There is no need for the Government to finance British Rail when

it is doing something which is commercially viable and can raise the money out of its own resources. The Government will ensure that its external financing limit poses no problems for this investment.
The carping amendment complains about the effect on jobs. As I have just explained, there will be benefits for jobs in Kent and other parts of the country and there will be benefits for jobs when the Channel tunnel is open. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House should take note of the substantial advantages when British industry is not suffering from the disadvantage of having to drag all its imports across the Channel, and having to send all its exports with double handling at each port end because it could not get them into the export markets. I am convinced, and I believe that the House will agree, that the opportunity for increased competitiveness by British industry makes many thousands of jobs more secure than they would otherwise have been.
The amendment attacks the Government for not having set up a public inquiry. I have already explained to the House that if we had a public inquiry it would mean that the Secretary of State would appoint an inspector and the inspector would carry out an inquiry and report to the Secretary of State, who would take the decision in private. That decision would be binding, whereas now the highest tribunal in the land—the House of Commons—is able to decide the issues. It is laughable to suggest that there is a lack of consumer choice.
I heartily commend the project to the House. It will provide a faster, more reliable and cheaper link with the continent.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 263.

Division No. 64]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Craigen, J. M.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Crowther, Stan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Deakins, Eric


Bell, Stuart
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dormand, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas, Dick


Blair, Anthony
Dubs, Alfred


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ian
Flannery, Martin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Derek


Clarke, Thomas
Foulkes, George


Clelland, David Gordon
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Garrett, W. E.


Cohen, Harry
George, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Conlan, Bernard
Golding, John






Gourlay, Harry
O'Neill, Martin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Park, George


Hancock, Michael
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hoyle, Douglas
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rogers, Allan


John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rowlands, Ted


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Lambie, David
Sheerman, Barry


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Loyden, Edward
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McTaggart, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Marek, Dr John
Torney, Tom


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Weetch, Ken


Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Michael


Meacher, Michael
White, James


Michie, William
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nellist, David
Mr. John McWilliam and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Ray Powell


O'Brien, William





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Alexander, Richard
Critchley, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Favell, Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Marcus


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Franks, Cecil


Cartwright, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Cash, William
Freeman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Freud, Clement


Churchill, W. S.
Fry, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Galley, Roy


Clegg, Sir Walter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Cope, John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Corrie, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Couchman, James
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian





Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gow, Ian
Madel, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Major, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry
Malone, Gerald


Gregory, Conal
Maples, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Marlow, Antony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Mather, Carol


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hannam, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Harris, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Harvey, Robert
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hayes, J.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Murphy, Christopher


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hickmet, Richard
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steven


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Osborn, Sir John


Holt, Richard
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howard, Michael
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Penhaligon, David


Howells, Geraint
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhodes James, Robert


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knowles, Michael
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Livsey, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spence, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spencer, Derek


Maclean, David John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)






Squire, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Steel, Rt Hon David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Steen, Anthony
Wallace, James


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Watson, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stokes, John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Whitney, Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Terlezki, Stefan
Wilkinson, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Woodcock, Michael


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Twinn, Dr Ian



van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Francis Maude.


Waddington, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 107.

Division No. 65]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Freud, Clement


Ancram, Michael
Fry, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Galley, Roy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cartwright, John
Grist, Ian


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cope, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Corrie, John
Hannam, John


Couchman, James
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, David


Critchley, Julian
Harvey, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Haselhurst, Alan


Dorrell, Stephen
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Durant, Tony
Hawksley, Warren


Eggar, Tim
Hayes, J.


Emery, Sir Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Favell, Anthony
Henderson, Barry


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Forman, Nigel
Hickmet, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hicks, Robert


Forth, Eric
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Hind, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Franks, Cecil
Holt, Richard





Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howard, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howells, Geraint
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Penhaligon, David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Porter, Barry


Jessel, Toby
Portillo, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Lamont, Norman
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Livsey, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spence, John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spencer, Derek


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Maclean, David John
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Major, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marek, Dr John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Mather, Carol
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Terlezki, Stefan


Mellor, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Merchant, Piers
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Murphy, Christopher
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Norris, Steven
Walker, Bill (T'side N)






Wallace, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Watson, John
Woodcock, Michael


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wheeler, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Whitney, Raymond



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Michael Neubert.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fatchett, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gale, Roger


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Garrett, W. E.


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Boyes, Roland
Hancock, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Heffer, Eric S.


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoyle, Douglas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Lamond, James


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbett, Robin
Litherland, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Craigen, J. M.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
Loyden, Edward


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Douglas, Dick
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Michie, William


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce





Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Sheerman, Barry


Moate, Roger
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Park, George
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White, James


Redmond, Martin
Winnick, David


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)



Richardson, Ms Jo
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Max Madden and


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. Dave Nellist.


Ryman, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
This this House approves the Government's White paper on the Channel Fixed Link (Cmnd. 9735).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Australia Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — AUSTRALIA BILL [LORDS]

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Inner London Education Authority (Precept Limitation)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
This order limits the precept which may be made for the financial year 1986–87 by the new Inner London education authority which takes over from the old ILEA on 1 April 1986. A shadow authority—the Inner London interim education authority is responsible for issuing this precept. Under the Local Government Act 1985, the new ILEA is automatically designated for precept limitation for the first three years of its existence—from 1986–87 to 1988–89. Because it is, in effect, a single service authority, I am responsible for this limitation. Its purpose is to protect ratepayers from high rates caused by high spending. Lower business rates also protect jobs. Although ILEA is automatically designated, it would, in view of its expenditure, have come well within the criteria for selective rate capping this year. Its 1985–86 budget was 5 per cent. above its expenditure target, itself related to the authority's past spending, and 70 per cent. above GRE.
I shall describe briefly the processes leading to this draft order. The Government have not reached a quick or sudden decision. Consideration began in July last year when I announced my intention to propose an expenditure level for the new ILEA for 1986–87 of £902 million. I confirmed that figure in September, as soon as the interim ILEA was established. At the end of October, the interim ILEA applied for a redetermined expenditure level, citing a range of £995 million to £1,025 million. I considered its case, and in December redetermined the expenditure level at £915 million. My conclusions were based on judgments which differed sharply from those of the interim ILEA in three main areas. First and most important, I took the view that the volume of the ILEA's expenditure should be substantially reduced. Secondly, I believed that the abolition of the GLC need not substantially increase ILEA's central administrative costs above its already high levels. Thirdly, I used the Government's forecast of inflation next year at 4·5 per cent. rather than the significantly higher figure favoured by the interim ILEA. In the event, I added £13 million to the expenditure level for largely technical reasons, but did not agree to make the substantial increase which the interim ILEA requested to maintain its expenditure at its present level.
Following the redetermination of the expenditure level, I proposed a precept maximum of 76·5p, also in December. That proposed precept maximum was derived from the redetermined expenditure level and from an assessment of the reserves available to the authority. It implied drawing down £39 million from reserves to relieve the precept.
In January, the interim ILEA refused the proposed precept maximum of 76·5p, and presented further evidence in support of a substantially higher precept. I examined all the evidence afresh, including further representations from the ILEA, and decided that it would be appropriate to assume the drawing of slightly less from

reserves in support of the precept. Therefore, I invited the interim ILEA to agree to a precept maximum of 77·25p, which was based on the same redetermined expenditure level of £915 million, but assumed the drawing of only £31 million from reserves.
The interim ILEA has refused to accept the new figure. In the absence of agreement, I decided to lay the draft order embodying a figure of 77·25p, which is now before the House. I did that because I wanted to establish a final precept maximum before the date of 15 February set out in the Rates Act 1984, in order to end uncertainty and to give the interim ILEA time to draw up a budget consistent with the precept maximum. At the same time, I made it clear to the interim ILEA that my door was open for further discussions.
This afternoon I met members of the interim ILEA. They proposed to me that we should agree on a precept maximum of 80·75p. That would be an increase of some 4·5 per cent. above the ILEA precept for 1985-86. It could be used to finance a budget of some £950 million, if about £27 million were drawn from reserves. Such a budget would be some £45 million less than the interim ILEA has previously claimed that it needs to spend. I have carefully considered that proposition. However, I have told the ILEA that I do not believe that extra expenditure of £35 million above the expenditure level which I redetermined in December would be necessary to maintain existing standards of education in inner London. Nor do I believe that the ratepayer should be asked to pay 4·5 per cent. more in 1986–87. Therefore, my judgment remains that the precept maximum of 77·25p embodied in the draft order is appropriate. I shall now explain why I consider the precept maximum of 77·25p to be appropriate, in terms both of the level of expenditure which it implies and of the effect on the ratepayer.
The ILEA has to contend with grave problems in discharging its duties to educate the people of inner London. The Government have never denied that. Our own assessments of cost allow for the extra costs imposed by concentrations of ethnic minorities, one-parent families, bad housing conditions and family poverty. But the ILEA spends far more than other inner city authorities. Even allowing for the extra cost of salaries in London, it has been spending some 30 per cent. more per pupil than Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle, and some 60 per cent. more per pupil than Birmingham. ILEA's pupil-teacher ratios are markedly more generous than the average for other inner city authorities. The differences between ILEA and others in non-teaching staff ratios are even more marked. Very large capitation allowances and a perverse charging policy also swell the authority's expenditure. It is unique among LEAs in having held its school meal charge at 35p since 1980.
The ILEA cannot justify this extra cost to the ratepayer in terms of the quality of its service. The evidence suggests that, when account is taken of pupils' circumstances, the attainment of pupils in ILEA schools is no better than that of pupils in comparable inner city authorities. The fact is that the ILEA has not made effective use of the huge sums which it has levied from its ratepayers. Let me give an example. The most important asset for any LEA is a well-managed teacher force of good quality, properly deployed. But the ILEA has allowed surplus teachers to accumulate on the staffs of its schools. That is not good either for the work of the schools or the morale of the teachers.


The Government have made clear over a number of years their wish to see lower expenditure by the ILEA. Pupil numbers have fallen by more than 20 per cent. in six years, but over the same period the authority's expenditure has been more or less steady in real terms. Its teacher force has indeed reduced but at much less than in proportion to pupil numbers so that pupil-teacher ratios have improved by 12·5 per cent. from the generous levels of 1978–79. Instead of using even the small saving in teacher numbers to reduce the burden on the ratepayer, the authority has added it back elsewhere in its budget.
My expenditure level implied a 6 per cent. reduction in the volume of ILEAs expenditure. It cannot seriously be claimed that such a cut would of itself put at risk the authority's performance of its statutory duties. Expenditure per pupil would still be more than 20 per cent. above that of Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle. More serious perhaps is the ILEA claim that the movement all at once to the lower level of expenditure would cause serious disruption. I assure the House that other local education authorities have achieved reductions from one year to the next of 6 per cent. and achieved them from a base level of expenditure much lower than the ILEA's. But the ILEA has argued—

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: I would rather not do so. I shall ask the House to allow me to reply at the end of the debate and I shall take questions then. I want to read this carefully prepared explanation of why I am imposing a precept maximum on the ILEA. I shall answer questions at the end of the debate, subject to the House giving me leave to reply.
The ILEA has argued that those other authorities took longer to prepare their reductions and that it cannot be expected to achieve a 6 per cent. reduction in 1986–87 starting from now. I ask the House to assess the worth of that argument in the light of what the authority has done since Parliament first gave the Government powers to limit rates and precepts.
There has been ample time to undertake a planned and managed reduction of its expenditure in response to Government policies. The expenditure level set for 1985–86 implied substantial reductions. The authority chose to take no action, but to rely upon its limited reserves to keep up spending. The expenditure level for 1986–87 has been known since July; but, instead of planning towards a budget in line with it, the interim ILEA spent months drawing up a budget at constant volume, so the ILEA has made its own task harder. Notwithstanding that, the Government have concluded that so high is ILEA's present level of expenditure that a volume reduction of 6 per cent. is practicable and attainable even from a standing start. I am satisfied that it remains appropriate to ask for that.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: In reaching my conclusions, I also had regard to the impact on ratepayers. Rate bills in inner London are high. Much of that is accounted for by the ILEA precept. The average domestic ratepayer is paying a sum approaching £250 a year on top of what he pays for the services of his local borough, the Metropolitan police and LRT. The average shop is paying about £1,500, and

the average office £11,000. Large commercial enterprises, of course face much larger bills. In total, the burden of the ILEA on inner London ratepayers is almost £900 million a year.
The ratepayer should be protected from further increases. The precept maximum incorporated in the draft order represents a standstill on the ILEA precept for 1985–86, so the average ratepayer should pay the same in cash as he paid in 1985–86. In contrast, the sort of figures considered by the interim ILEA—and which I do not doubt it would have imposed but for precept limitation — would have entailed an increase in the precept of some 16 per cent. That would have meant another £40 for the average domestic ratepayer, £250 for the average shop and £1,750 for the average office. Ratepayers should not have to pay in this way for the expansion of an already extravagant service.
That is why this draft order has been laid before the House, and that is why I ask the House to approve it.

Mr. Giles Radice: The Opposition will be voting against the order, because that is the only way open to us to express our opposition to the level of precept that the Secretary of State is imposing on ILEA.
It is wrong in principle for a Secretary of State to impose by order on the citizens of inner London his diktat on the maximum that should be spent on education. It is one thing for central Government to have a view on the minimum standards, although the Government remained disappointingly silent when the inadequacies of the Somersets, the Herefords and Worcestershires, the Kent, and the like have been exposed by the Secretary of State's advisers, the HMI. It is quite another for central Government to impose their will on maximum standards of provision, as under the order.
It is ironic that this Secretary of State, who has spoken and written so much about the overmighty state, should in practice be the Minister who has assumed the most extensive centralising powers. He obviously believes the dictum that Elizabeth house knows best. In this case, Elizabeth house not only does not know best, but has little idea of the likely impact of the cut being imposed on ILEA.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Radice: I shall not give way, as I should like to develop my speech.
The reality, as the Secretary of State knows, is that ILEA is already planning to make savings of around £18 million, as a consequence of falling rolls and improved efficiency. Even the Secretary of State admits that the consequence of the imposing of the precept of 77·25p in the pound will mean volume cuts of 6 per cent., or £55 million in the coming year. The scale of cuts is likely to be considerably greater. First, ILEA believes that the Department has underestimated by £13 million the extra cost of setting up the new education authority. Secondly, it is clear that the 4·5 per cent. that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, which he is assuming for pay and price increases in the coming year, does not take account of the spill-over effect of the provisional teacher's settlement for this year—which I remind the House is end-loaded to 8·5 per cent.—or of the manual workers' settlement.


If we look a year ahead, we see that the Secretary of State has often told the House about his offer of Government money for a deal on structure and conditions of service, but if such a settlement is reached the Inner London education authority will not benefit because it does not receive rate support grant. Indeed, it stands to lose because it will be bound by any agreement that may be reached. In other words, a long-term settlement next year would, in ILEA's case, be at the expense of further cuts. Is the Secretary of State aware of this? As he is to answer questions at the end of the debate, he might care to write down that one.
The Secretary of State has argued that the kind of contingencies to which I have referred will be fully covered by ILEA's balances, but, as Maurice Stonefrost, the clerk to the authority, pointed out in a letter to Sir David Hancock, the permanent secretary at the Department of Education and Science, the level of balances assumed to be satisfactory by the DES are, in his professional judgment, dangerously low. In fact, there is a real danger that the authority would be faced, in the words of Maurice Stonefrost, with
a deficit financing position in its budget process.
In other words, it could run out of money during the coming year. Are this Government and this Secretary of State trying to impose an illegal budget on ILEA? I should like the Secretary of State to answer that question, too.
The consequences of even the level of cuts envisaged by the Secretary of State are likely to be extremely disruptive. The highly respected ILEA education officer, William Stubbs—I do not know whether the Secretary of State has ever run an education authority, so I should prefer to take the education officer's word against his, if he does not mind—has told Sir David Hancock that this scale of reductions would mean that the authority would be able to replace only one in three of any staff who leave the service in 1986–87. He said:
It can be forecast with certainty that these vacancies would not occur evenly and many schools and colleges would be unable to replace key members of staff during the course of the financial year. Not only would curtailment of the education service become inevitable, but the maintenance of adequate standards of provision would be put at risk.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: No, I should like to finish this quotation. I shall then give way. Mr. Stubbs then said:
I would have to advise of the probability of the service breaking down in some areas, with the authority being unable to guarantee to fulfil at all times the whole range of its statutory obligations, leading to the near certainty of legal challenge for such failure to comply with its duties.
Again, are this Government trying to force ILEA to ignore its statutory obligations and to act illegally? I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is referring to a 6 per cent. cut in expenditure. The hon. Gentleman says that it may be a little more than that; he may say that there will be a 10 per cent. cut in expenditure. ILEA spends roughly twice as much on primary school pupils as is spent upon primary school pupils in my constituency. My right hon. Friend has said that even allowing for London weighting this is 50 per cent. more than the

average, and it is 30 per cent. more than is spent in Newcastle upon Tyne and 20 per cent. more than is spent in Birmingham. [HON. MEMBERS: "60 per cent."] Yes, 60 per cent. more than is spent in Birmingham. How on earth does the hon. Gentleman justify this vast level of extravagance by ILEA, even after the cuts?

Mr. Radice: ILEA is one of the few authorities which the Secretary of State's own advisers, Her Majesty's inspectorate, believe is spending up to the right kind of levels.
In that context it should be highly significant to the Secretary of State that even the London chamber of commerce and industry is concerned that cuts of that magnitude should not be compressed into one year, as the Secretary of State is trying to do.
Given the advice being offered to him, not only by respected officers of ILEA but by London business men and industrialists, the onus is on him to prove that such cuts will not harm or disrupt the education of Londoners, and he has not proved that tonight.
To any fair-minded person, it is frankly bizarre that the Government propose to cut at least £55 million in one year at a time when above all ILEA needs stability. The damage that has already been done to children's education by the teachers' dispute will in ILEA's case, be greatly compounded by the disruption of making the Secretary of State's cuts. The tragedy is that at a time when "firm and efficient management"—the Secretary of State's words — ought to be concentrated on establishing the new service and on raising standards in inner London, it will have to be spent on implementing cuts.
In that connection, let me quote a letter from the vice-chair of the parents' central consultative committee of ILEA. I believe that he has written to the Secretary of State tonight and that the letter has been endorsed by the chairs of all the parents' consultative committees of ILEA at a meeting earlier this evening. He says:
Many of us remember what you"—
the Secretary of State—
told parents at Central Hall on 10th May 1984."—
I was at that meeting, so I can remember too.
'The Government of the day will judge what can reasonably be expected as a reduction in ILEA's spending without damaging the quality of education, and that is the assurance I can give you.'
It is the judgment of the Authority's most senior officers that, in fact, the reduction expected (indeed, demanded) would not only damage the quality of education, but could lead to the breakdown of the service during the course of the year.
The ILEA has demonstrated its willingness to make savings that do not damage children's education, and we know that the judgment of these officers is based on a intimate knowledge of all the relevant facts. We therefore feel that there is an overwhelming obligation upon you to reconsider the decision you have made.
It is quite clear that, unless the maximum precept is raised from the proposed 77·25p, the Authority is likely to be in an impossible situation before the end of the year.
Whilst your judgment contradicts that of those responsible for running the ILEA's services, we feel that— in order to lend any credibility to your assurance of May '84—there is also an overwhelming obligation upon you to explain to parents (whose views you have so often claimed to respect) the reasoning behind your judgment, and to demonstrate that the quality of our children's education will not be damaged by the reduction you propose.
If the Secretary of State will not answer our questions, he might at least answer the points put to him by London parents.
But, of course, the Secretary of State has heard all those facts before. Throughout the past two months he has learnt


them from ILEA officials and councils. On Friday he heard them from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself when he met us at Elizabeth house.
Only a few hours ago, as the Secretary of State has told us, ILEA's leader, Mrs. Frances Morrell, and other ILEA councillors met with him to discuss compromise proposals by which the maximum precept would be raised to 80·75p. This would require the authority to contain within its budget the additional cost it faces in 1986–87 over and above the general rate of inflation.
ILEA accepts that it needs to control costs, but the Secretary of State is not prepared to give anything. His only response has been to raise the maximum precept by a marginal amount, as he has had to admit. We reject his approach to London's education and the nation's education. It is true that ILEA spends more than other education authorities, and so it should. On almost every count, ILEA has more to cope with—seven out of 10 of the most disadvantaged boroughs are in inner London; the population density is 10 times the national average; the number of one-parent families is twice the national average; the number of children taking school meals is twice the national average; and the number of children speaking English as a second language is four times the national average. Despite those problems, ILEA has massive achievements to its credit—extensive nursery provision, a good pupil-teacher ratio, generous provision for pupils with special needs and the most extensive adult education service in the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State usually points to examination results. I think that he would have been a little more generous if he had said that the results in 1983 were the best since 1978 and that progress was maintained in 1984. Of course, as the Hargreaves, Thomas and Fish reports show, much more needs to be done in London education, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I should have thought, as would most fair-minded people, that the creation of a directly elected authority would be an exciting opportunity to improve further the educational prospects for London's children. Instead, the Secretary of State, with his singular combination of ideological obsession and executive incompetence, typically plans to add to the chaos he has already created. Such recklessness can come only from a Minister who knows that his days are numbered.
It would be better for the Secretary of State and, more importantly, for the nation's education if he were to go now before he does any further damage. Whatever happens to the right hon. Gentleman, there is a ray of hope—Londoners will have the opportunity to say what they think about the Government's educational policies in the coming ILEA elections, which will be the first education election for a century, and in the coming Fulham by-election. I am confident what the people's verdict will be.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has repeated some of the current crop of ILEA scare stories about the irreparable damage that will be done to London education becaue of these proposals. I think that we would be justified in inviting the hon. Gentleman to remember that, about this time last year, the same prophecies of doom and gloom were emanating from county hall about the irreparable damage done by last year's expenditure limits, and none of them has been borne out.
Only days ago, the controlling group on ILEA was suggesting that if ILEA could not spend £995 million, irreparable damage would be done. Now, apparently £950 million is enough to stop irreparable damage from being done. The amount has fallen by approximately £45 million in about 48 hours.
The question to which the hon. Member for Durham, North singularly failed to address himself—and whoever sums up for the Opposition must address this question—is: why does it cost 60 per cent. more on a unit cost basis to educate a child in an ILEA secondary school than it costs in Birmingham, and 40 per cent. more than in some outer London boroughs? [Interruption.]
I do not know what the hon. Member for Durham. North said from his sedentary position, but if he is saying that it costs more to do things and there are more problems in central London, we would agree. But are there 60 per cent. more problems in central London than there are in Birmingham?

Mr. Frank Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the costs of the Metropolitan police are disproportionately greater than the costs of the police in areas outside London? So it is with the costs of the ILEA.

Mr. Maples: I was not aware of that. I should not have thought that the same considerations would apply to education. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it may be an argument for reducing the costs of the Metropolitan police, not for increasing the costs of education.
The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party have consistently failed to address the question: why does it cost so much more? Last year expenditure was reduced by 4 or 5 per cent., and none of those adverse consequences occurred. It is not credible to suggest that a further 4 or 5 per cent. reduction this year will result in irreparable damage. My right hon. Friend has it about right. It is reasonable to ask that expenditure should stay at about the same in cash terms.
The ILEA is putting about serious scare stories regarding the consequences of this measure, as it did last year, and that is worrying parents a great deal. It would help if my right hon. Friend would itemise the differences between authorities such as Birmingham and London, and show how savings could be made in a way which will not damage education. We know that they can be made.
There are considerable differences in staffing ratios, charges for some adult education courses and expenditure on property and property maintenance in ILEA. Therefore, considerable savings can be made. I invite my right hon. Friend to go into those matters in a little more detail so that parents will realise that the authority can make modest savings without damaging education.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine have to contribute through their taxes to other children around the country, but they have to fund the entire education service of inner London through their rates. How does he justify that difference?

Mr. Maples: I was coming to that point. Now that the ILEA is rate capped, it is difficult to justify the fact that it does not receive any rate support grant. The target and penalty system was designed to encourage local authorities to spend less—[Interruption.] It would probably help


me to make the point if I were not subject to barracking from the Opposition. Despite the fact that I believe that the ILEA could make some modest savings without damaging education, it could not cut its expenditure to the point where it would receive any of this grant. If I remember the figures correctly, it would have to cut its expenditure by about £250 million to £300 million before it started to receive grant. It would have to reduce its expenditure to under £500 million to receive its full entitlement to rate support grant.
I should like my right hon. Friend to discuss with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, now that ILEA has been rate capped and its total expenditure is under control and public expenditure nationally has been brought under control, it is unreasonable that it should receive no rate support grant. It is the only local education authority which does not receive any.
All of us, including Opposition Members, would like to see the ILEA receive the maximum possible value for money. One of the ways of achieving that would be to delegate far more control of expenditure, the budget and the budget management to schools, and to bypass the county hall-ILEA bureaucracy as much as possible.
I have tried out that idea on a few heads in my constituency, and almost without exception they have welcomed it and asked to be given the chance to try. If that is too radical to be implemented, on the basis that one should never do anything radical for the first time, we could perhaps try it with a few schools where it is felt that their make-up and size and the quality of the head could make some such system work. It would enable money to be spent in a particular school in a way which related to the needs of that school as perceived by the head, the staff and the governors—the people who are close to where the effect of those decisions will be felt—not at county hall.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the alternative use of resources by schools—money which has been spent at the discretion of heads in consultation with staff — has been a satisfactory scheme, the bureaucracy at county hall having been kept out of it?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend gives a good example, but the AUR programmes in most schools represent a very small part of the money spent on the schools. It seems to me that that principle can be radically extended to give a particular school the total amount of money which is to be spent on that school by the local authority during a term, year or month, or whatever period of time it relates to, and for the school to decide how to spend it. It obviously has to do certain things—teach certain subjects and employ teachers — but basically the school can decide its priorities. First, that would break the monolithic nature of ILEA, which worries many of us. Secondly, we would get better value for money with a far greater degree of satisfaction on the part of head teachers, governors and staff in the schools which actually make the decisions.
The freeze on ILEA's spending in cash terms is acceptable and achievable without any of the horrendous results predicted by the Opposition. However, it would help if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would explain in detail how those savings can be made without

irreparable damage to education. I ask him to consider in some detail the two specific points that I have mentioned: first, that it is no longer reasonable that ILEA should receive no rate support grant now that it has been rate-capped; and, secondly, the concept of delegating management of budget and finances to individual schools.

Mr. John Cartwright: I make it clear at the outset that alliance Members will vote against the order, first, because we are still opposed to the concept of rate capping. In our view, rate capping is wrong in principle. There is no point in having a directly elected Inner London education authority if we are taking from the electors of inner London the right to decide crucial issues affecting our authority. Its spending crucially should be decided by the electors, not by Ministers and civil servants in the Department of Education and Science. That is one objection to the principle of rate capping.
Secondly, we believe that rate capping is bureaucratic in operation and often wasteful in practice. If one has to apply damaging cuts at the last moment, the risk is that they are imposed not on the basis of any careful consideration of where the cuts can do least damage, but simply on the basis of where they can be made in a hurry. That can sometimes be crucial.
I believe, and I am sure my colleagues agree, that it is impossible to impose the sort of cuts which are talked about in the order without damaging the basic fabric of education. We have already heard the views of the education officer, Mr. Stubbs, but it is worth recalling one sentence of his letter dated 21 January 1986 to the Department of Education and Science:
The consequence of expenditure reductions on such a scale could not avoid causing grave damage to the education service.
If Conservative Members are not impressed by that, perhaps I should quote from a letter from Professor David Smith, the leader of the Conservative group on the Inner London education authority who resigned recently and who gave some of the reasons for his resignation in a letter to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I quote from that letter:
The recent decision by Central Government with respect to the precept limit for the Authority will result in cuts in the level of service; cuts that I believe will be disruptive to the education service".
That is the view of the former Conservative leader in ILEA, and it should carry some weight with Conservative Members.
Having said that ILEA has a powerful case, I am bound to say that it is undermined by the point which was made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). The shock horror stories about cuts would be much easier to accept this year if we had not heard absolutely the same stories last year. We heard them not only from ILEA, but from the Greater London council, and from inner London boroughs that were rate capped last year. We were told in banners across every public building that rate capping meant cuts. We were told that rate capping was the end of civilization as we knew it in inner London.
What has happened? That spending has gone on as if there were no problem. There have been no cuts and no redundancies. Therefore, it is hardly surprising if the Government, on the one hand, and the electors in inner London, on the other, take the view that it is just another set of stories like the ones that they were told last year. I believe that there is much more basis to the shock horror


stories this year, but the ILEA cannot be surprised if, having cried wolf last year, it finds that the electorate do not respond to cries of wolf on this occasion.
ILEA has not responded to the obvious threat of rate capping. There has been no attempt to plan for the inevitable. The leaders of ILEA do not live in an ivory tower. They knew what was going on, and that rate capping in the coming financial year would be more stringent and effective than in the previous year, yet they made no attempt to provide for that. In fact, spending has continued to rise, consuming nearly all the available reserves.
Spending has gone beyond budgeted expenditure. In the summer of 1985, for example, an extra £300,000 was provided for more publicity. A week or so ago, an extra £100,000 was provided for additional press officers. That is an extremely strange sense of priorities. Here is an education authority telling us, with reason in my view, that the basic fabric of inner London's education is being impaired by the order, yet it is providing extra money to pay for publicity and press officers. That is not a powerful case to put to inner London electors.
ILEA has a great deal of which to be proud, but there are areas of concern about its spending priorities and spending record. For example, since 1978–79, the cost of administration has increased by 16·5 per cent. in real terms at a time when the school rolls were going down by 12 per cent. That needs exploration. The cost of community education is up in real terms by 16 per cent. over that period when the number of student hours has fallen by 15 per cent.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong attack on the existence of ILEA and its methods of spending money. Does he agree that it would be useful if every education authority was afforded the opportunity to use falling school rolls to improve the pupil-teacher ratio and provide the many education facilities that are wanted in schools but have been denied in the past?

Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening carefully. I said that administration costs, not teaching costs, were up 16·5 per cent. while school rolls had gone down by 12 per cent. There may be a case for improving the teacher-pupil ratio at a time of falling school rolls, but I do not accept that the case for improving and extending administration is anything like so powerful.
Another example is expenditure on education welfare services, which is up 5 per cent. in real terms while school rolls have fallen by 12 per cent., and there is no improvement in attendance figures.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a great deal of school welfare concerns the welfare of the individual child, not just attendance? Does he accept that unemployment and other problems in London have increased substantially in recent years, adding very much to the burden of education welfare officers?

Mr. Cartwright: I do not dispute for a moment that a case can be made out for those things. I am simply saying that, on the basis of the figures, those issues should be explored. Here is an authority saying that it is not possible to make any economies, except in the basic fabric of education. I am giving instances of areas that could be examined.
Inner Londoners are willing to invest in inner London education, but in some cases they are concerned about the way in which money is being spent. That concern was confirmed in a couple of MORI opinion polls carried out by the Inner London education authority and paid for at the expense of inner London ratepayers. We have seen an extremely expensive campaign publicising some of the polls' findings, but only some of them. Some have been suppressed and some show concerns of inner London electors about the way in which some aspects of ILEA policy is pursued.
The response of the ILEA leadership to the problem of rate capping is typical of Labour local authorities faced with rate capping elsewhere. They have taken a difficult problem and have been determined to make it as bad as possible. They have been intent on creating confrontation with the Government. They have pursued a policy denounced by the leader of the Labour party as playing politics with people's jobs and services. We reject that approach as vehemently as we reject the order.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I speak as a parent. All three of my children go to Inner London education authority schools. I am the last person to be uncritical of some aspects of ILEA's performance and the performance of its schools, and I can criticise, because I experience what those schools are trying to do. However, I recognise the circumstances in which they are trying to do their job.
I represent many people who send their children to ILEA schools. Most of them are satisfied with what the authority is doing and trying to do. In our traditional British way, we shall put that to the test in May. am certain that the new directly elected Inner London education authority will have an overwhelming majority of Labour Members when that election takes place.
It is preposterous that a Government who introduce a directly elected authority, having tried 15 other types of attack on ILEA in preceding years, should suddenly decide that that elected authority has no mandate to spend the money that the people who put themselves to the bother of being elected believe needs to be spent on education in inner London.
Where do the Government get any mandate to carry out what they propose to do to inner London's education? There has been no mention in any Tory election manifesto that they have ever put to the people of inner London of establishing that type of authority. There was no reference in any Tory manifesto put to anyone in the country that the Secretary of State would have powers to decide how much money could be spent on education in inner London.
Even in the 1983 genera) election—a disaster for the Labour party—we still returned a majority of Labour Members for inner London — and, by God, it shows. Only one Tory inner London Member is present in the Chamber. At least, he had the decency to speak. If the Inner London education authority proposes school closures, the rest, in their hypocritical way, will shuffle in with the delegations, saying, "Do not damage the education of my constituents." But they will have busily voted for the limitation order tonight.
In inner London, Labour have the majority of GLCILEA seats on the GLC, so there is no mandate for the Government there. Even in our bad times, Labour has controlled the inner London boroughs.


The Government have no mandate to limit the spending of ILEA. The authority is not even spending any of the Government's money. Under this skinflint, abominable Government, the authority, which has the most difficulties in this country, receives no grant.
The Secretary of State, who is a freeman of the City of London, may ask about the poor business ratepayers who have been beaten to their knees by awful Labour authorities, but even the London chamber of commerce—the people who pay the rates; that is about the only tax they do pay, which is why they are so opposed to the rates—say that the precipitate reduction is too great and ought not to take place.
The Tories in my constituency have chosen their candidates for the new authority. One is a woman called Olga Maitland, who, I believe, writes for a newspaper. She sends all three of her children to private schools, but is seeking to have the right to determine what happens to the schools of all the other people in my constituency. She will not touch those schools with a barge pole; that is typical of the hypocrisy of many Tory Members.

Mr. Maples: Surely one of the responsibilities of the elected members of the new education authority will be to look after the interests of the ratepayers.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Act under which ILEA was established he will not discern any statutory responsibility for ratepayers being imposed on members of the authority. The ILEA members should look after the education of children, young people and adults in inner London; that is their duty. The ratepayers will be able to vote them in or vote them out in the usual way. It is unreasonable for the Secretary of State to set spending limits for ILEA. The authority, for good or ill, whether its decisions are right or wrong or properly judged or not, and whether every penny of the money is needed or not, should be taking the decisions and carrying the can with the electorate.
We do not believe that the Secretary of State is fit to decide such matters. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is personally fit to make those decisions. Like most people interested in education, in inner London, I was exhilerated to see on a recent billboard of The London Standard "Joseph to Quit". It seems that even the right hon. Gentleman has decided that he will not be up to representing the electors of Leeds at the next election. The people of inner London think that he is unfit to unrepresent and damage the education of their children now, and that he ought to go. It will be a disgrace if anyone who purports to represent the people, parents or children of inner London votes for the order. It will undoubtedly damage the interests of those children. The Secretary of State said—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Too long.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) says that my speech is too long. With due deference to my hon. Friends, I shall take as long as I need to talk about the interests of the people I represent.
The Secretary of State said that ILEA charges 35p per school meal. As a result of that, the proportion of schoolchildren in inner London eating school meals in this time of great impoverishment and great unemployment has

increased. And so it should. That is good and worthwhile spending. There is no more direct way of getting nourishment into a child than by giving it a meal. That is a better way of spending money than anything that Tory Members can think of.
We have heard suggestions that ILEA is profligate. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West had the decency to accept that the Metropolitan police were possibly more exorbitant in their expenditure per unit than the ILEA. It is no good him shaking his head now. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is likely to agree to increase the expenditure of the Metropolitan police because of inner-city difficulties.
The Secretary of State has taken unto himself direct powers over inner London. When London Members ask to see the Home Secretary about London matters, he agrees to see us. We want to ensure that when representatives and parents from inner London ask to see this Secretary of State about inner London matters, in which he will now directly interfere, we are not told to raise them in a debate. If he takes the powers, he must take the responsibility. We believe that he should leave the responsibiltiy where it properly rests — with those elected to provide an education service in inner London. They should be given the resources to do that. If what they do is not right, they will face the direct consequence by being thrown out of office by those who can choose to elect or not elect them. That is the way that it should be, and that is how it will be under the next Labour Government.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It is quite wrong that we should debate the expenditure of almost £1,000 million of public money in a one-and-a-half-hour debate late at night. It is the product of the centralisation of all decision-making around one or two Ministers. It is unsatisfactory that we should be expected to take decisions on matters affecting the children of inner London when few inner London Members are present—only one on the Government Benches—and when the Secretary of State is barely listening to the debate. I wonder whether he really understands the damage that he is about to do to the children of inner London.
For seven years before I became a Member of this House, I was a full-time trade union official for the National Union of Public Employees within ILEA. For the past two years I was secretary of the manual workers' negotiation committee for all manual workers employed by the ILEA. It would be wrong not to say that, on occasions, there were severe differences between us and ILEA on some of its employment policies, or that we did not make strong demands. However, both we and ILEA were acutely conscious that education is about service to the community and about all those who work in a school, be they cleaners, school meals assistants, teachers, secretaries or whatever.
I represent an ILEA constituency, and many of my constituents and others will suffer badly if the order is passed. It began from a long process of discussion within ILEA not about how to improve educational standards, which apparantly the Secretary of State wants, but from a process of fear about what might be cut in schools or what schools might be closed.


Rather than trying to face the problems of the children in inner London, teachers, administrators and others involved in education have instead had to suffer endless letters from the Secretary of State about how to make reductions in their educational expenditure.
Only a few days ago, with much publicity, the Government announced their inner-city initiative — a paltry few million pounds to be spread over a large area. Indeed, the amount being offered to various parts of the country is less than required to build 50 houses. Yet tonight, with no publicity, the Government propose to make enormous cuts in the education budget of inner London.
I have to ask the House to consider areas such as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras represents, the levels of unemployment there and the fate of many school leavers. In 1980, one year after the Government came to office, there were eight youngsters for each job available for school leavers. Three years later there were 20. That is the measure of how bad unemployment has got in inner-city areas.
ILEA cannot be expected to control the economy of inner London or to solve all of the problems that are heaped on it by the Government's economic policies, but it has at least tried to equip those youngsters for the type of life that they will lead when they leave school. It has tried to develop community education. It has developed a first-class further and higher education service and it tops the league table in any sense in the provision of further education for those who missed out on any opportunity when they left school. ILEA's principle has been to provide higher and further education for those who wish to follow it, irrespective of their ability to pay and irrespective of their academic achievements on leaving school.

Mr. Maples: And irrespective of the cost.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Member might shout nonsense, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I am sure that he would be the first to lead a deputation if he heard that the City Lit was closing down.

Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not say nonsense, but "Irrespective of the cost". That is one of the things that the hon. Gentleman was not thinking about.

Mr. Corbyn: I am thinking very much about the cost of those institutions. I am aware that they are expensive and that they are non-statutory, but I am also aware that they are extremely valuable. It is not possible to run an education system based on an accountant's calculator. It must be based on the effectiveness of equipping children for later life and of further and higher education services.
The cost that the Secretary of State believes is the correct figure for London's education next year takes no account of many factors, and he knows it. It takes no account, for example, of inflation, which he presumably thinks does not happen. It also takes no serious account of the cost of abolition of the greater London council and the cost therefore forced on ILEA. It also has many hidden features, such as the right hon. Gentleman's obsession with ILEA leaving county hall. Has the right hon. Gentleman examined any of these matters? Has he examined the real costs, and the effects on every school and every child throughout London of the proposed precept?
The Secretary of State said that he would give some answers later. Here is a question for him, to which I should like a clear answer. He said that ILEA has not raised the price of school meals from 35p, a price that was set some years ago. I wish that it had been set at 25p before the last election. Nevertheless, I am glad that the price has not increased from 35p, as it means that many children are able to get a decent meal, which they would otherwise not get. Half of the children in inner London are eligible for free school meals, which demonstrates, and is an indictment of, the level of poverty.
My question is simple. If the price of school meals is raised to the level found in some outer-London boroughs—60p and 70p—how many children will go without a school meal because their parents cannot afford it? Bearing in mind the system by which school meals workers are employed—it is based on the number of meals served and an allocation of hours to each kitchen—how many school meals workers would lose their jobs? What would be the cost to the public purse through unemployment benefit, social security payments and the misery associated with making those meals workers unemployed? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of them are part-time women workers for whom no other job is available?
In short, the right hon. Gentleman is telling the people of inner London and ILEA that they should starve the children, sack the cooks and sack the school meals assistants because of his obsession with the pricing mechanism of the school meals service. Or, does he want ILEA to privatise its school meals service and throw more people out of work, so that even fewer children get a free school meal? That seems to be the direction in which he is moving. Will he consider the effects of his suggestions?

Mr. Donald Thompson: It is like all our yesterdays.

Mr. Corbyn: I look back on the period before 1979, not as the greatest achievement that I would have wished for, but when children were at least sure of getting a school meal, teachers were sure of their jobs, and a great threat did not hang over our education service.
The Government and Tory Members do not care about inner London or the future of ILEA. But they have been forced by public action and pressure to have an elected education authority, which they did not want, just as earlier public action and pressure prevented them from abolishing ILEA altogether and handing it over to individual borough councils. In May they will face an election, which they will certainly lose, and the education authority will be Labour controlled and, will certainly, be ratecapped until the Government are finally driven from office.
The Government must face the fact that they have no supporters for their proposals for inner London, and that ILEA, for all its difficulties and size, is a popular institution. Many people find it essentially sympathetic to the children and problems of inner London. But the Government, instead of recognising the special difficulties of inner London, such as its poor housing, high level of unemployment, and the fact that one in six children at ILEA schools speak English as a second language, not the first, are not prepared to recognise the effects of their policies on inner London. By the systematic removal of Government expenditure on inner London, the Government have ended treating the poorest part with the


greatest problems, with the greatest disrespect and giving it no financial help in most years. That is an indictment of their treatment of inner London.
Tonight we shall vote against the precept. I hope that the debate will be heard elsewhere, and that in the Fulham by-election people will understand what the Government's attitude to education means. They do not care. ILEA has attempted to provide the best for the poorest children. That is one reason why the Tories will lose the by-election, the council elections and, above all, in London the general election, when it comes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to add some brief, specific points to those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright).
The Secretary of State did not deal with interventions during his speech, and I wish to point to the fundamental inconsistency in his argument. He argued that there is scope for enormous cuts, and that it is appropriate to cut the ILEA budget by 6 per cent. However, his Cabinet colleagues are falling over themselves pretending that they need to spend more on inner cities and to give urban grants. Only last week the Paymaster General was providing more sweeteners for inner cities and pretending to provide more money, albeit only little more, because he recognises the needs. It is impossible for the Government to argue that the ILEA has no more needs, to accept that the inner cities, especially inner London, have enormous needs, and to dispute the views of inspectors that ILEA does a good job and of their colleagues, not least the leader of the Conservative group on ILEA, that the Government are misguided in their approach to inner London education. Inner London is clearly a deprived area in social terms. There are problems that stem from lack of opportunity, employment and educational attainment. There are fundamental social problems accompanied by drugs and other evils. Only investment in the education service can substantially alter that deprivation for life.
I shall show by example how misguided it is to cut inner London expenditure. First, I ask the House to consider the non-statutory sector in the youth service. I declare an interest, because before I was elected to this place I was a member of the Southwark area youth committee, and I remain a member. If we are to try to deal with the inadequate employment opportunities of young people and the time that they can put to misuse which they can put to good use with guidance, we must develop, not restrict, the youth service. If we are to give young women the opportunities that young men have often enjoyed and create opportunities for career guidance and training for the development of social relations, we must spend money on the youth service, not contract it. If it is said that all that can be afforded is statutory provision, there will be no money available for expanding the youth service in inner London, with the result that increasing numbers of inner London's young people will have little to do and little prospect of employment when they leave school.
Secondly, I shall give an even more harrowing and, I hope, pointed example to the Secretary of State. The special schools in London are still grossly underfunded. Recently I visited one of the special schools in Southwark—Cherry Garden school. It does not have sufficient

supply and permanent teachers. It does not have the ability to take its severely handicapped pupils from the ground floor to the first floor because it does not have the money to install a lift. The staff are trying desperately to allow those with handicaps and disabilities to develop their potential so that they can lead a full life. The best chance that the staff have of doing that is with children between the ages of two, when they start at the school, and 18. If they are held back, if the opportunities to correct the imbalance that heredity, illness, nature or circumstances have brought about are not taken by investment through public funding, we are doubly handicapping those who most need the benefits of our investment.
The reality is that education in inner London is still not meeting many of the needs that Britain requires it to meet. I accept that there can be savings, but there is no scope for massively cutting investment. The needs are enormous. I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that a time of enormous cuts generally, the additional burden of cutting back severely on the ILEA budget will lead to a recipe for inner London that offers a far less satisfactory future for our young people than we ask for them, that they deserve and that otherwise they would be able to obtain.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I declare an interest. Both my children went to ILEA schools, my wife is currently an ILEA teacher, and I am the governor of a school in my constituency. Over the past 15 or so years I have been a governor of about five other ILEA schools. I can claim some first-hand knowledge and some direct experience of the issues that we are discussing.
I am horrified by the way in which the Government think that, on a purely arbitrary basis, they have the right to determine the nature of education and spending on education in inner London. They have made out no case for their approach, which is based upon no direct knowledge of what is going on in the schools. They merely take the view that they must punish the ILEA. The reluctance of the Government to have any faith in the people of London and their elected representatives is astonishing. Why cannot the Government say, "Let the people of London decide; let us leave it to Londoners to decide how much they are willing to spend on the education of London's children"?
The truth is that since the Government's election they have decided that the ILEA is to be got at. The Government have decided to attack and undermine by various means education in inner London. This is only the first of many chapters in the saga. Having listened to the Secretary of State and his predecessors, and to the Tory party as a whole, I have come to the conclusion that they have no interest in the education or the children of inner London.
The Secretary of State compared London with Birmingham and other inner cities. ILEA is unique because it represents only an inner city area and because it has no leafy suburbs or middle class areas, with the exception of Chelsea, south Westminster and parts of Kensington. Therefore, London has a larger proportion of children from disadvantaged homes than any other education authority. For that reason if for no other, London should be treated as an authority that needs more help and support than any other education authority.


The one thing that Britain has going for it other than coal and diminishing oil is the skill, education and training of its people. That is the only thing that will, in the next century, separate Britain from underdeveloped countries. If we do not continually invest in those assets, we shall be throwing away our future, and we shall be as nothing. That is why I look with horror on any Government who say that education can be cut because it does not matter. We reject that view utterly and entirely.

Sir Keith Joseph: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the time available, I must do my best to answer all the questions that have been put, but I must correct one impression at once. The picture has been given that in the ILEA area unemployment has been higher and earnings lower than in any other inner city area. That is untrue. I hope that the House will remember that employment and average earnings in London are higher than they are in any other inner city area. That is so on an inner city to inner city basis.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: I cannot give way, as I have a large number of questions to answer.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who drew attention to the degree to which ILEA last year spoilt its case by prophesying gloom and doom, and crying wolf. It must expect some scepticism about its forecast this year in the light of what transpired last year. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked why ILEA does not receive grant. I remind them of the unique rateable value of ILEA. That is why it does not get grants.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made a significant speech about school meals. It is possible for ILEA to raise school meal charges to a level somewhat nearer the national average—from 35p, the level at which it has been since 1980, to the national average of 60p. One of the economies canvassed by ILEA officials was an increase to 50p. Whereas there might be job losses in connection with a rise in school meal charges, it does not follow that an increase in school meal charges leads necessarily to a decline in the take-up of school meals. Many other authorities have so designed their school meals service as to increase the take-up of school meals even though the prices have risen.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: I am not giving way, as I have to cover many points in a limited time.
Moreover, although the hon. Member for Islington, North lays much emphasis upon the loss of jobs in the schools meals service—a loss of jobs which I do not accept as being necessary—ILEA's ILEA's policy, involving increased rates for ratepayers, including businesses, involves an equal number of job losses, which the Opposition completely fail to take into account.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: No.
It is well known that job losses result from increased rates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, it is not."] Many businesses have been driven out of high rate authority areas, with the consequent loss of a great number of jobs.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) asked me a number of questions that I shall seek to answer. He referred to the HMI comment in its annual report that ILEA provides adequate cover against a number of criteria. Nobody doubts that. The HMI report does not say, however, that ILEA provides that adequate cover at an economic cost. Nor must the hon. Gentleman or the House confuse the provision of service with the quality or standards of that service. Above a certain minimum sufficiency for education it is not possible to measure the standard, quality or effectiveness of education by the mere counting of spending. Spending is extremely important, but it is not the same as quality or effectiveness. The point about ILEA is that, despite record spending, it does not succeed in raising the standard, effectiveness or quality of the education of its pupils above that of much lower spending authorities that face equal problems. The Government readily accept the difficulties that ILEA, to an even greater extent than other inner city authorities, faces in education, but the difference between spending and effectiveness has to be borne in mind.
The hon. Member for Durham, North asked the Government to remember that ILEA has proposed savings of £18 million. Yes, it has, but what does it intend to do with those savings? It does not intend to return them to t he ratepayer. It intends to redeploy them upon other facets of education.
Much emphasis was laid upon the damage that ILEA's education officials assert will be caused if the draft order is approved, because only one in three vacancies in ILEA will be filled during the year in question. That damage will occur only if there is no vigorous management to carry out a redeployment of staff. As I said in my opening speech, ILEA retains 450 teachers who are supernumerary to its establishment. It could therefore replace one in three vacancies without any damage being done to the quality of education if it carried out at the same time a vigorous redeployment policy. Vigorous management will be necessary.
I was asked to give examples of other education authorities that have carried out cuts of 6 per cent. in one year. Manchester has carried out a cut of 9 per cent. I have a list of authorities that have made cuts in real terms of 5 per cent. or more. They have made those cuts from a spending base that is far lower than ILEA's. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] Barnet has done so twice; Harrow; Kingston upon Thames; Merton twice; Richmond upon Thames; Sefton; Manchester; Trafford twice; Doncaster; Gateshead; Newcastle upon Tyne; South Tyneside; East Sussex; Gloucestershire; Kent and Somerset.
Special schools in ILEA are not underfunded. They spend well above the national average with due attention to the handicap of each child.
The hon. Member for Durham, North asked whether the Government are seeking to impose an illegal budget on ILEA. Certainly not. I was asked by the hon. Gentleman whether the Government are seeking to require ILEA to ignore its statutory duties. Certainly not. ILEA has statutory duties and it would be open to a default inquiry if it failed to carry out its statutory duties.


I am sure that the officers of ILEA, to whom praise has rightly been given by the hon. Gentlman, are able to carry through the necessary savings once the House approves an order on the lines of the draft order being put to the House this evening. I regard them as certainly able to carry out the savings required without damage to the education of the children of ILEA.
No Government have ever shown more concern for the quality, standards and effectiveness of education in Britain than this Government.

Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: No.
ILEA cannot expect that the public should measure its standards, quality and effectiveness merely by its spending. It can maintain, and I hope improve, the quality of the education of the children of inner London by more vigorous management even at lower cost. I ask the House to approve the order.

Mr. Radice: Why did not the Secretary of State agree to a compromise with ILEA this afternoon, as he was perfectly able to do? If he had agreed to a compromise, ILEA would be accepting savings and there would have been a better precept. That would have been the sensible course for the Secretary of State to take. He has not taken it, and is is stupid not to have done so.

Sir Keith Joseph: Because I believe that ILEA can maintain and even improve the standards of education to its children at a lower cost to the ratepayers. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman challenges me, I say that I have raised the expenditure level and the maximum precept by a significant amount.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 160.

Division No. 66]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cope, John
Hannam, John


Corrie, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Harris, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Harvey, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Haselhurst, Alan


Durant, Tony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hayes, J.


Favell, Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Henderson, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hickmet, Richard


Forth, Eric
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Franks, Cecil
Hind, Kenneth


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Freeman, Roger
Holt, Richard


Fry, Peter
Hordern, Sir Peter


Gale, Roger
Howard, Michael


Galley, Roy
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Hubbard-Miles, Peter





Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ryder, Richard


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sackville, Hon Thomas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Jim Dorset W)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Squire, Robin


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Major, John
Stokes, John


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Maples, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Marlow, Antony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mather, Carol
Terlezki, Stefan


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moore, Rt Hon John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Norris, Steven
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Ward, John


Osborn, Sir John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Watson, John


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Parris, Matthew
Whitfield, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Whitney, Raymond


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wilkinson, John


Pollock, Alexander
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, Barry
Winterton, Nicholas


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Woodcock, Michael


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Francis Maude.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Barron, Kevin


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bell, Stuart






Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Blair, Anthony
Fisher, Mark


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foulkes, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, W. E.


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Golding, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clarke, Thomas
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clelland, David Gordon
Heffer, Eric S.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint


Conlan, Bernard
Hoyle, Douglas


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John Brynmor


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Livsey, Richard


Eadie, Alex
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey





Loyden, Edward
Robertson, George


McCartney, Hugh
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rogers, Allan


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rooker, J. W.


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McTaggart, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maxton, John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, William
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Nellist, David
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Gavin


O'Brien, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Park, George
Tinn, James


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Pavitt, Laurie
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Weetch, Ken


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Redmond, Martin



Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Don Dixon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Orpington Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen]

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the problem of the future of Orpington hospital. There is considerable anxiety in my constituency about the development of the hospital, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on a number of points. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being here.
The stages in the progress of Orpington hospital from its origin as a hutted encampment to its destiny as a full-blown district general hospital has been reported by me to the House in Adjournment debates from time to time and almost annually over the past five years. The history is one of erratic and slow progress marked by setbacks and changes of policy which have at times undermined the viability of the hospital as the intended district general hospital for the southern half of the Bromley health district.
The Government have proclaimed their attachment to the National Health Service, and one understands that the amount of public money being spent on the nation's health nowadays is in real terms greater than ever before. Unfortunately, that is not always the impression given locally when hospitals are closed or reduced in size or services on the ground of financial economies. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to show my constituents that the problems arising for Orpington hospital are not in any sense due to an overall reduction in funding.
The origin of Orpington hospital was a military hospital built with temporary materials by the Canadian Government during the first world war. When the Canadians left, the 30-acre site filled with single-storey wooden buildings and Nissen huts was taken over to serve local needs. Comparatively little was spent on the buildings themselves for many years, but the hospital, because of the quality of the staff and the support of the local people, attained a high reputation.
In the 1970s capital funds were allocated for the rebuilding of the hospital and the replacement of the huts by fine modern buildings. The most recent development is the construction of a modern surgery block — the Ontario wing—which cost over £8 million and is part of an overall strategy intended to provide a district general hospital on the site. The strategy of the Bromley district health authority is to have two district general hospitals, located at Bromley town in the north and Orpington in the south, to be completed by 1993–94 and to centralise all acute, general and surgical services on them with 600 and 470 clinical beds, respectively. That is a satisfactory arrangement for Orpington.
The site is well placed to serve the fastest growing part of the health district. At present it serves a population and patients spreading far south into Kent and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew). It is the nearest hospital in southeast London to the M25 motorway which, in the future, may be the source of casualties needing urgent treatment. The hospital stands on a healthy green field site of 30 or

more acres, so there is plenty of room for expansion, unlike the site of Farnborough hospital nearby, which is in 19th century buildings and is very congested.
Faced by a need to make ends meet two years ago, the district health authority adopted a number of economies, one of which was the overnight closure of the accident and emergency services at Orpington hospital. An average of ten patients per night were turned away from the hospital—for an estimated saving of £70,000 per annum. Emergency cases locally, including those arising in Kent, out of office hours, must now be taken elsewhere, six miles further on, to Bromley or Sidcup. As a result, the hospital lost its status as a major accident centre. When the horrendous pile-up in fog on the M25 occurred two years ago, with many casualties, they had to be taken virtually past the hospital gates into Bromley. The overnight closure of the casualty service at Orpington was provisional. It has not yet been confirmed by the Minister, and I hope that it will not be.
A full-time accident and emergency service is a prerequisite for a full-blown district general hospital. The absence of such a service is bound to have a depressing effect on staff and on the recruitment of highly qualified people.
More recently, however, we have had an astonishing proposal from the district authority. In an attempt to get its sums right, it saw fit to recommend the downgrading of Orpington hospital in favour of the hospital at Farnborough, which it recommended should be designated as the site of the proposed district general hospital. The suggestion seems to have come originally from the professionals at Farnborough, who calculated that the total outlay of public funds could thereby be reduced. There was, however, a violent storm of protest in Orpington. Petitions were organised and public meetings held. One that I attended, in the biggest available hall, was so large that hundreds of people were turned away. The strength of local feeling in support of Orpington hospital was amply demonstrated. Fortunately, the district health authority gave way and, with some help, or perhaps pressure, from the regional authority, reinstituted Orpington as the site of the district general hospital.
After that, the planners went back to their calculators. They produced a new plan, accepting the emergence of Orpington ultimately as one of the two district general hospitals by 1993–94; but, pending the capital investment needed to implement the strategic aim of having two district general hospitals at Bromley and Orpington, they proposed to save revenue by running down Orpington's general medical services and transferring them to Farnborough.
That plan is inconsistent with the ultimate objective of district general hospital status for Orpington, and it has not found favour with the regional authority, which has promised more co-operation in solving Bromley's temporary financial problems. There are a number of steps that the regional authority could take to help Bromley district health authority, besides making capital development funds available. If, for example, it would be easier and less costly to run services when they are concentrated on the two sites, any repayments of loans and any impositions of the regional RAWP formula should be adjusted to the latter part of the period of redevelopment rather than spread equally over the whole period.
I conclude by asking my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary three questions. First, will he confirm


that Orpington hospital will be developed as a district general hospital once and for all? Secondly, will he tell us what will happen to Farnborough hospital? Thirdly, will he confirm that whatever changes are made elsewhere, Orpington's general medical and surgical services will not be run down meanwhile? If I can have his assurances on those points, I am sure that my constituents will rest content and endure stoically the minor changes and economies that may be forced upon the authority by the redevelopment. Changes and economies there always have to be, but please do not let us have any that will put the future of Orpington hospital into doubt once again.

The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I hope that in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) I shall be able to offer assurances to enable him and, more importantly, his constituents to rest content. I am glad to have the opportunity to spell out the future position of Orpington hospital as we understand it in the Department. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the constant attention that he pays to the health provision, as with all other provisions, of his constituents about whom he is intimately and passionately concerned.
My hon. Friend mentioned the national expenditure on the National Health Service, and quite rightly, because it is important. In all the concerns about the changing and improving pattern of the delivery of the NHS, it is forgotten all to often that, in real terms, increasing amounts of taxpayers' money is devoted to the Health Service. We are proud of the fact that, since we came to office in 1979, there has been an increase of more than 20 per cent. In 1986–87, spending will increase by £650 million and not by £670 million, which I quoted incorrectly in a debate on 5 February. The increase of £650 million represents an increase of 6·7 per cent., which is about 2·2 per cent. more than the forecast rate of inflation. Further increases are planned in the following two years and also further increases in capital spending. As my hon. Friend rightly said, in total, national spending on the Health Service is increasing in real terms. The question is how that affects our constituencies and its impact on our constituents.
My hon. Friend referred to the now famous RAWP—the resource allocation working party. The policy of redistributing resources between different parts of the country will continue. Those regions which have historically received less than their fair share of resources or which have rapidly increasing populations will receive the larger increases, ranging up to 8 per cent. The decisions on the 1986–87 allocation reaffirm our commitment. As regions move closer to their targets, it becomes increasingly important that the targets are themselves a reasonably accurate measure of need. We have therefore asked the NHS management board to review the operation of the formula, in particular the way in which relative needs in different parts of the country are measured, taking account of such factors as the patterns of illness across the country, and the special problems of the inner cities. I mention that, because it is important to understand that the RAWP allocation is carried out in a sensitive manner while trying to take the best possible account, within a steadily increasing global total, of the special demands and requirements of each district.
South-east Thames, in which my hon. Friend's constituency falls, is a RAWP loser—as the jargon calls it. It was 13 per cent. above target when RAWP was introduced in 1977–78 and in 1985–86 it is 5·6 per cent. above target. However, its position is better than originally assumed following the December statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. It will be receiving an increase of 5·8 per cent. compared with forecast inflation of 4·5 per cent.
One priority task that the region has set for the strategic period up to 1994 is the correction of the gross imbalance of funding within its districts. Sadly, that is not good news for Bromley, which is a RAWP loser. Its current revenue funding is 105·7 per cent. of its RAWP target and it is planned to reduce that to 100 per cent. by 1993–94. Therefore, there is no doubt that the district is facing financial problems, and a fundamental cause of that is the high number of acute beds in the district, scattered over as many as four sites. That inevitably leads to an inefficient use of resources and a needless drain on revenue that is in heavy demand in other parts of the NHS.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the scatter of beds in the health authority area. The Farnborough hospital is about two miles from Orpington and there is some duplication of services in general medicine and surgery. Not surprisingly, patient throughput, or the efficient use of beds is very low, with a death and discharge rate of 36·7. That is also the national figure on that NHS performance indicator. The corresponding figure for Bromley is 31·2. Nearby, Maidstone shows what can be achieved by the efficient use of services. It has a figure of 41·7.
The health authority was required to look for remedies, both short term and long term. Those remedies have come into conflict in Orpington and led to the turbulence that my hon. Friend described.
Detailed options are still being discussed, but there is agreement between the region and the district that Farnborough hospital should close within the strategic period, or not too long thereafter, and that beds should be concentrated at Bromley and Beckenham in the north of the district and at Orpington in the south. The overall number of acute beds in the district would reduce from the present 659 to 566, bringing about a considerable and lasting saving of resources, without any sacrifice of patient care. That is an important point.
As for the short-term future, several rationalisation measures have been proposed. There has been a history of abortive consultations and it would be complicated and perhaps pointless to go into details, but in December, those measures and others taken under the urgent temporary procedure in the spring of 1985, together with further measures still to be implemented, were presented as a package to the health authority. These measures, and others as yet unimplemented, have been the source of the latest contentions.
One proposal was the transfer of gynaecological and orthopaedic services from Beckenham which would have concentrated wholly on the care of geriatric patients. That was seen as workable and worthwhile, but trouble arose over the suggestion that gynaecology beds should be transferred to Farnborough hospital, where all acute beds in the south of the district would be concentrated, and that the number of acute beds in the district should fall drastically from 659 to 529.
Reaction from the region has been felt, although the proposals have not been officially presented to the region.


I understand that there was a meeting of the regional chairmen and the chairman of the district on 15 January when it was agreed that the proposals affecting Farnborough and Orpington hospitals and the massive reduction in acute beds were simply not acceptable. I understand also that the district has accepted that view.
The region has tried to be positive in suggesting other ways in which savings might be made, for example by rescheduling repayments of capital, deferring schemes jointly financed with the local authority, rationalisation at Cane hill hospital and other measures. The district can expect to come within about £500,000 of its expected 1986–87 shortfall — a sum which, with firm management, should be achievable without sacrifice of patient care.
The region's suggestions will be discussed fully at the district health authority meeting in February. Should it be necessary for the DHA to consult formally local interested parties or others on its proposal, and if the Community Health Council objects, the matter may have to come to Ministers for a decision. If that happens, I assure my hon. Friend that we will take into account all factors, including those that he has mentioned.
My hon. Friend kindly advised me of the three particular points that he wished to put to me. He asked whether the future of Orpington hospital was secure as the district general hospital serving the southern part of the district. My answer is a firm yes. There has been some recent speculation that acute services may be centred at Farnborough hospital, leaving Orpington to concentrate on the care of elderly and orthopaedic patients. That speculation resulted from proposals that had strong medical backing put to the DHA meeting in December. Those proposals will, however, categorically not be put into effect. At a meeting between the regional and district

chairmen and their senior officers on 8 January, it was agreed that the proposals ran counter to the district's longterm strategy to close Farnborough hospital within the strategic period and focus district general hospital facilities at Orpington.
My hon. Friend asked about the future of Farnborough hospital. It is the district's long-term intention—10-plus years—to close Farnborough hospital, which is only two miles distant from Orpington. If that does not happen, Farnborough may be transferred into a smaller unit specialising in the care of elderly and elderly severely mentally infirm patients.
My hon. Friend's final question was whether I could confirm that acute services at Orpington will not be run down. Again, my answer is the affirmative. The district's long-term plan is to concentrate acute services at Bromley hospital in the north of the district and at Orpington in the south. Bringing acute beds together on two rather than the present four sites may mean a reduction in the district's current overall number of acute beds, but, with careful rationalisation, that will not entail any sacrifice in patient care.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure my hon. Friend about the future of Orpington hospital and the keenness with which the district, the region and the DHSS have followed the discussions on the provision of services, recognising the undoubted pressures that exist, but which apply, as my hon. Friend would be the first to say, to the NHS as a whole. Within the national resources that are increasing in real terms, I am convinced that the health care available to my hon. Friend's constituents will continue to improve in quality and, where appropriate, in quantity.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o' clock.